THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 


JTI^^ 


THE 

STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS 


BY 


GEORGE   HOLLEY  GILBERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

IOWA   PROFESSOR   OF  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE  AND 

INTERPRETATION    IN    CHICAGO   THEOLOGICAL 

SEMINARY 

AUTHOR  OF  "  THE   REVELATION  OF  JESUS  "  AND 

"THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  PAUL" 


THIRD  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

LONDON:    MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LTD. 
1900 

All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1896, 
By  CHICAGO  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY. 

Copyright,  1900, 
By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Norfajooti  5^rega 

J.  S.  Cushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Mass.  U.S.A. 


TO 

ALL    EARNEST    STUDENTS 

OF 

Wtiz  Immortal  Efjeme 


"As  for  me,  my  archive  is  Jesus  Christ.  The  indestructible 
archive  is  His  cross,  and  His  death,  and  His  resurrection,  and 
the  faith  through  Him.''^ 

IGNATIUS,  115  A.D. 


PREFACE 

OF  THE   FIRST   EDITION 

The  aim  of  this  volume  is  different  from  that  of 
the  great  lives  of  Christ  which  enrich  and  adorn  the 
Christian  literature  of  our  century.  For,  first,  it  does 
not  seek  to  discuss  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  detail. 
This  is  regarded  as  a  distinct  theme,  and  is  considered 
only  in  so  far  as  seemed  necessary  to  a  clear  account 
of  the  character  and  life  of  Jesus.  The  reader  is  asked 
to  bear  this  fact  in  mind,  and  not  to  hold  the  book 
responsible  for  a  full  explanation  of  all  the  words  of 
Jesus. 

Second,  the  aim  of  this  volume  is  also  pecuHar  in 
that  it  seeks  to  present  the  subject  in  a  form  suited  to 
students  in  particular.  Persons  who  take  the  life  of 
Jesus  so  seriously  that  they  wish  to  get  at  the  very 
facts,  do  not  desire  that  these  facts  should  be  woven 
into  a  romance,  or  set  forth  together  with  the  thou- 
sand devotional  lessons  that  may  be  quite  legitimately 
drawn  from  them,  or  presented  with  such  elaboration 
and  fulness  of  reference  to  many  writers  and  many 
opinions  that  the  outlines  of  the  life  itself  become 
blurred  and  indistinct.     The  student  wishes  to  be  made 


Vlil  PREFACE   OF  THE   FIRST   EDITION 

acquainted  with  the  facts  as  directly  and  clearly  as 
possible.  That  is  the  service  which  the  present  volume 
seeks  to  render. 

This  aim  makes  the  book  compact  and  predomi- 
nantly critical.  By  critical  we  mean  seeking  the  truth 
in  a  scientific  manner.  One  who  thus  seeks  endeavors 
to  prove  all  things,  whatever  the  claims  which  they 
make  for  themselves  or  which  others  make  for  them. 
This  method  is  always  truly  conservative,  for  the  more 
clearly  truth  is  seen  the  more  surely  it  is  conserved. 
To  remove  error  is  to  promote  truth,  and  to  show  that 
beliefs  have  a  rational  basis  is  to  increase  their  power. 

And,  further,  this  book  is  written  with  the  conviction 
that  a  believer  in  Christianity  may  investigate  the  life 
of  Jesus  as  scientifically  as  an  unbeliever.  One  fact, 
among  others,  which  justifies  this  conviction,  and  which 
is  sometimes  overlooked,  is  this,  that,  for  the  Christian, 
the  risen  and  reigning  Lord,  who  is  actually  conquer- 
ing the  world,  is  infinitely  greater  than  the  written 
Gospel.  The  power  of  Christianity  is  His  spiritual 
presence,  and  not  the  inspiration  or  infallibility  of  the 
story  of  His  earthly  Hfe.  Our  faith  does  not  stand  or 
fall  with  these  things.  The  essential  claims  of  the 
Gospel  are  daily  established  by  the  deepest  experiences 
of  millions  of  souls.  So  the  Christian,  whose  life  rests 
not  upon  any  alleged  quality  of  the  Gospel,  nor  even 
on  the  written  Gospel  itself,  but  whose  life  consists 
rather  in  a  personal  relation  to  the  living  Lord,  is,  to 
say  the  least,  as  well  able  to  investigate  the  documents 


PREFACE  OF  THE   FIRST   EDITION  ix 

of  Christianity  impartially  as  is  the  unbeliever.  May 
the  time  be  hastened  when  all  investigators  in  this 
field  shall  loose  their  shoes  from  their  feet  before  the 
central  Figure  of  the  Gospels,  and  recognize  in  Him 
the  final  expression  of  divine  wisdom  and  divine  love. 
Surely  the  outcome  of  all  the  critical  research  of  our 
waning  century  is  a  deepening  sense  of  the  inviolable 
historic  value  of  the  Gospels,  and  now,  as  ever  in  the 
past,  the  Church  awaits  with  undimmed  hope  and  un- 
ceasing effort  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  by 
the  revelation  and  power  of  Jesus  Christ  its  King. 

G.  H.  G. 

March  24,  1896. 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

FOR   THE   THIRD  EDITION 

Grateful  for  the  kind  reception  given  to  this  book 
in  its  earlier  editions,  I  have  endeavored  to  make  this 
new  issue  somewhat  more  worthy  the  regard  of  stu- 
dents. To  this  end  a  sharper  discrimination  has  been 
made  between  material  that  is  biographical  and  that 
which  is  doctrinal  only;  large  sections  of  the  book 
have  been  entirely  rewritten  in  the  interest  of  clear- 
ness and  of  fidelity  to  the  sources;  arguments  for 
and  against  conclusions  on  difficult  points  have  been 
weighed  anew,  not  to  confirm  positions  once  taken,  but 
rather,  if  possible,  to  get  at  the  facts;  and  finally,  an 
attempt  has  been  made  not  only  to  rectify  the  errors 
of  the  First  Edition,  but  also  to  supply  what  it  lacked, 
especially  by  fuller  references  to  the  text  and  to  the 
literature  of  the  subject,  and  by  an  index  of  the  passages 
from  the  Gospels. 

The  Introdtiction  of  the  First  Edition  becomes  the 
Appendix  in  this,  not  because  I  think  it  less  important 
than  I  did  at  first,  but  because,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  it  is  somewhat  technical  and  abstruse,  and,  there- 
fore, in  the  view  of  some  readers,  not  a  thing  to  be 
grappled  with  at  the  outset. 

G.  H.  G. 

March  13,  1900. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  Overshadowed  by  the  Most  High      .        .        .        i 

II.  The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus        .        .        .12 

III.  The  Education  of  Jesus 33 

IV.  The  Baptism  of  Jesus 45 

V.    The  Temptation  of  Jesus 57 

VI.  A  Bird's-eye  View  of  the  Ministry  of  Jesus    .      67 

VII.  The  Beginnings  of  the  Ministry        ...      80 

VIII.  The  Early  Judean  Ministry        ....      92 

IX.    Two  Days  in  Sychar 104 

X.  The  Early  Galilean  Ministry    .        .        .        .110 

XI.    At  the  Feast  of  Purim 156 

XII.  The  Later  Galilean  Ministry    .        .        .        .163 

XIII.  Last  Labors  for  Jerusalem         ....    204 

XIV.  The  Perean  Ministry 216 

XV.     In  Bethany  and  Ephraim 225 

XVI.     The  Last  Eight  Days 233 

XVII.  The  Resurrection  and  the  Risen  Christ  .        .314 


Appendix:  The  Sources  of  the  Life  of  Jesus 

Index  of  Subjects 

Index  of  Passages  from  the  Gospels 


335 
407 
409 


THE 
STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

CHAPTER   I 
Overshadowed  by  the  Most  High 

Introduction. 

In  regard  to  the  early  life  of  the  Founder  of  Christi- 
anity two  facts  strike  the  reader  of  the  New  Testament : 
first,  the  scantiness  of  material  regarding  the  thirty 
years  preceding  His  brief  ministry ;  and  second,  the 
somewhat  pecuHar  character  of  much  of  this  material. 
Not  a  thirtieth  part  of  the  Gospel  narrative  is  devoted  to 
the  private  life  of  Jesus,  though  this  extended  through 
about  thirty  years,  while  His  ministry  continued  only 
two  or  three.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels,  late  in  origin 
and  wholly  unhistorical,  give  their  chief  attention  to 
the  early  private  life  of  Jesus;  but  the  trustworthy 
documents  scarcely  lift  the  veil  which  hides  that  life 
from  our  view.  The  Jesus  whom  we  know  is  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  not  Jesus  the  private  citizen  of  Nazareth.  On 
His  ministry  there  shines  a  clear  light,  but  of  what  Hes 
behind  this  we  have  the  most  meagre,  though  signifi- 
cant, details. 

These  details,  when  compared  with  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive in  general,  are  seen  to  have  a  character  of  their 

B  I 


2  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

own.  Thus  there  is  a  remarkable  prominence  of  angels 
in  the  brief  narrative  concerning  the  early  life  of  Jesus. 
Three  times  an  angel  speaks  to  Joseph  in  a  dream, 
and  three  times  angels  speak  to  those  who  are  awake. 
Again,  when  Joseph  was  "  warned  "  in  a  dream  (Matt.  ii. 
22),  the  narrator  probably  thought  of  this  warning  as 
communicated  by  an  angel,  though  this  is  not  explicitly 
said.  In  the  entire  record  of  Jesus'  pubhc  ministry 
angels  are  represented  as  appearing  on  two  occasions 
only,  and  on  one  of  these  the  reference  is  quite  incidental 
(Mark  i.  13).  Then  this  material  regarding  the  early 
life  of  Jesus,  when  compared  with  that  regarding  His 
ministry,  has  a  relatively  large  number  of  difficult  prob- 
lems, Matthew's  narrative  having  more  in  proportion  to 
its  length  than  Luke's.  Part  of  this  material  is  of  such 
a  character  that  it  has  been  regarded  by  some  Christian 
scholars  as  poetry  rather  than  history.  This  fact  also 
marks  it  off  from  the  bulk  of  the  Gospel  narrative. 

With  these  general  remarks  on  the  scantiness  and  the 
character  of  our  information  regarding  the  early  Hfe 
of  Jesus,  we  pass  at  once  to  the  mystery  of  His  origin. 

The  Data. 

And  first  the  data.  The  story  of  the  supernatural 
conception  of  Jesus  is  found  only  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  (Matt.  i.  18-25;  Luke  i.  26-38).  The  other 
evangelists  make  no  allusion  to  it,  nor  is  it  referred  to 
in  the  remaining  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Paul 
speaks  of  Jesus  as  ''  born  of  a  woman  "  (Gal.  iv.  4),  but 


OVERSHADOWED   BY  THE   MOST   HIGH  3 

it  is  impossible  to  hold  that  this  expression  implies  a 
miraculous  origin.  It  is  just  an  ordinary  way  of  stating 
the  fact  of  human  birth  (Matt.  xi.  11).  Neither  can  we 
find  the  supernatural  conception  in  Paul's  words  regard- 
ing the  "  second  man,"  that  he  is  "  of  heaven,"  in  con- 
trast to  the  "  first  man,"  who  is  "of  the  earth"  (i  Cor. 
XV.  47).  The  entire  passage  has  to  do  with  the  natural 
and  the  spiritual  body, "but  it  has  no  suggestion  of  a 
contrast  between  natural  and  miraculous  birth.  It  is 
said  that  allusions  to  the  real  and  ideal  elements  in  the 
birth  of  Christ  are  common  to  the  New  Testament 
books  beside  the  first  and  third  Gospels. ^  "  The  fourth 
evangelist  conceives  the  coming  of  Christ  as  the  becom- 
ing incarnate  of  the  Divine  and  Eternal  Word,  while 
Paul  in  many  a  form  expresses  and  emphasizes  his  be- 
lief in  a  Christ,  who  *  being  in  the  form  of  God,  did  not 
think  equality  with  God  a  thing  to  be  snatched  at,  but 
emptied  Himself  by  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being 
made  in  the  likeness  of  men.'  "  But  these  passages 
cannot  be  said  to  imply  a  supernatural  conception.  Be- 
fore they  can  be  thus  used  it  is  necessary  to  prove  that 
John  and  Paul  did  not  think  of  an  incarnation  as  _f>os- 
sible  except  by  way  of  a  virgin-birth.  It  is  plain  that 
they  believed  in  the  divine  origin  of  Christ,  but  that  is 
quite  different  from  believing  in  His  miraculous  concep- 
tion. It  remains,  therefore,  that  our  only  data  regarding 
the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus  are  those  of  the 
first  and  third  Gospels. 

1  See  Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  37  and  331. 


4  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

The  story  in  Matthew  is  quite  different  from  that  in 
Luke.  Both  agree  that  there  was  something  super- 
natural in  the  origin  of  Jesus,  but  beyond  this  the  narra- 
tive of  each  evangelist  is  peculiar  to  himself.  Matthew 
relates  how  Joseph  was  induced  by  a  dream  to  take 
Mary  after  he  knew  her  condition.  Luke  says  nothing 
of  Joseph,  but  tells  of  the  annunciation  to  Mary,  In 
Matthew  the  supernatural  conception  is  made  known  to 
Joseph  in  a  dream  a  considerable  time  after  its  realiza- 
tion ;  in  Luke  it  is  announced  to  Mary  as  something 
yet  to  be,  and,  as  far  as  the  story  goes,  it  is  announced 
to  her  while  she  is  awake. 

In  both  narratives  the  name  of  the  child  is  made 
known,  in  Matthew  to  Joseph,  in  Luke  to  Mary.  More 
is  said  to  Mary  than  to  Joseph  of  the  mission  of  the 
coming  child.  In  Matthew  this  mission  is  to  save  His 
people  from  their  sins ;  in  Luke  it  is  to  reign  forever 
over  the  house  of  Jacob.  But  all  these  differences  are 
not  important.  The  only  serious  question  presented  by 
the  data  is  the  question  whether  the  two  narratives, 
each  taken  as  a  whole,  are  consistent.  Schleiermacher^ 
held  that  they  are  not,  and  many  scholars  have  followed 
him  in  this  view.  It  is  said  that  Mary  would  surely 
have  communicated  to  Joseph  what  she  had  heard  from 
the  angel ;  and  if  she  had  done  so,  Joseph  would  have 
had  no  suspicion  regarding  her  faithfulness,  and  conse- 
quently would  not  have  needed  the  angelic  communica- 
tion which  Matthew  gives.     We  agree  with  Beyschlag^ 

1  Das  Lebenjesu,  p.  51  f.  ^  Das  Lebenjesu,  I.  149. 


OVERSHADOWED   BY  THE   MOST   HIGH  5 

that  every  motive  of  shrewdness,  of  honor,  and  of  duty 
would  have  constrained  Mary  to  tell  her  betrothed  at 
once  what  the  angel  had  announced  to  her,  but  does  it 
surely  follow  that  Joseph  would  be  satisfied  ?  Would  he 
be  likely  to  credit  her  word  and  to  believe  that  a  stupen- 
dous miracle  had  been  wrought  upon  her  ?  The  test  of 
his  confidence  in  Mary  was  altogether  extraordinary, 
and  it  seems  less  improbable  that  he  needed  a  divine 
assurance  of  her  faithfulness,  such  as  Matthew  records, 
than  that  he  at  once  accepted  Mary's  story.  Therefore 
it  is  not  at  all  plain  that  the  historical  character  of  the 
data  is  discredited  at  this  point. 

Difficulties. 

There  are  some  facts  in  the  Gospels  that  may  be 
regarded  as  unfavorable  to  the  supernatural  conception. 
Thus  it  is  said,  first,^  that  an  earlier  and  correct  view  of 
the  matter  appears  in  Luke  (ii.  27,  33,  41,  43,  48),  where 
the  parents  of  Jesus  are  mentioned,  where  a  father  is 
referred  to  even  as  a  mother,  and  where  Mary  herself 
is  represented  as  saying,  ''Thy  father  and  I  sought 
thee  sorrowing."  But  it  is  not  probable  that  Luke 
regarded  this  language  as  conflicting  with  the  super- 
natural conception,  for  he  was  writing  to  confirm  the 
faith  of  Theophilus  (i,  4),  and  it  is  not  likely  that  he 
would  begin  his  story  with  palpable  contradictions. 
The  language  of  Luke  in  the  above  passages  is  natural 

1  Keim,  The  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara,  H.  39-68,  Engl.  Translation, 
Williams  and  Norgate. 


6  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

when  we  consider,  first,  that  Joseph  was  at  any  rate 
the  legal  father  of  Jesus ;  and  when  we  consider, 
second,  that  such  a  fact  as  the  supernatural  concep- 
tion would  be  instinctively  kept  from  public  knowl- 
edge. To  have  made  it  known  during  the  life  of  Jesus 
would  have  been  to  invite  calumny. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  held  that  the  genealogies 
of  Jesus  in  Matthew  and  Luke  (Matt.  i.  1-16;  Luke 
iii.  23-38)  presuppose  paternal  parentage.  It  must, 
indeed,  be  admitted  that  both  lists  give  the  genealogy 
of  Joseph.  The  view  that  Luke  gives  the  genealogy 
of  Mary  lacks  support.  It  is  indeed  held  by  some^ 
that  it  would  manifestly  be  without  sense  to  give  the 
genealogy  of  a  man  who  was  not  the  real  father  of 
Jesus,  but  only  His  supposed  father,  and  that  Luke's 
genealogy  must  therefore  be  the  genealogy  of  Mary. 
But  it  m2.y  be  said  in  reply  to  this  argument  that 
Matthew  plainly  does  what  is  here  declared  to  be  with- 
out sense.  For  he  gives  the  genealogy  of  Joseph  (Matt, 
i.  16),  and  then  says  that  Jesus  was  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  (Matt.  i.  18).  Luke  may  do  the  same 
thing.  Then,  too,  if  he  wished  to  give  the  genealogy 
of  Mary,  why  did  he  not  say  so  clearly  }  Certainly  the 
reader  naturally  thinks  that  he  gives  the  genealogy  of 
Joseph.  It  is  only  by  violence  that  it  is  taken  from 
Joseph  and  given  to   Mary. 

The  fact  that  Luke  and  Matthew  give  the  genealogy 
of  Joseph  rather  than  that  of  Mary  is  perhaps  unfavor- 

^  E.g.,  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  211. 


OVERSHADOWED    BY   THE   MOST   HIGH  J 

able  to  the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus,  but  it  can 
hardly  be  said  to  preclude  that  conception.  Jesus  was 
the  legal  son  of  Joseph,  if  not  his  physical  son,  and  the 
evangelists  therefore  regarded  Him  as  heir  to  Joseph's 
genealogy.  This  is  plain  from  Matthew  i.  i8,  where,  at 
the  close  of  the  genealogy  of  Joseph,  it  is  indicated  that 
Jesus  was  not  Joseph's  child.  It  is  also  plain  from  the 
fact  that  Matthew  and  Luke  give  these  genealogical 
lists  side  by  side  with  their  teaching  of  a  supernatural 
birth.  Therefore  we  must  admit  that  the  evangelists,  at 
least,  did  not  regard  the  genealogies  as  conflicting  with 
the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  the  unbelief  of  the  brothers  of 
Jesus  shows  that  the  story  of  His  supernatural  concep- 
tion is  not  historical.  This  argument  implies  that  they 
would  have  believed  in  Him  as  the  Messiah  if  they  had 
known  of  His  miraculous  birth.  But  this  is  not  valid. 
Miracles  did  not  lead  to  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
The  men  who  crucified  Him  admitted  that  He  did 
many  signs,  even  that  He  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead. 
So  we  might  readily  believe  that  the  brothers  of  Jesus, 
even  if  they  had  known  the  circumstances  of  His  birth, 
would  not  have  been  spiritually  impressed  by  them.  If 
they  had  known  !  But  we  can  scarcely  assume  that 
Mary  disclosed  to  her  other  children  the  facts  concern- 
ing the  birth  of  Jesus.  It  is  more  natural  to  think 
that  she  regarded  these  as  holy  secrets,  to  be  pon- 
dered in  her  own  heart  rather  than  to  be  imparted  to 
others. 


8  THE   STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Evidence  of  Historicity. 

Over  against  these  facts  which  are  thought  to  be 
unfavorable  to  the  historical  character  of  the  narrative 
regarding  the  supernatural  conception  there  are  certain 
other  facts  which  rather  support  its  historicity.  There 
is,  first  of  all,  the  suggestion  that  Luke's  narrative  came 
originally  from  Mary  herself.  It  is  said  that  she  kept 
all  the  words  which  she  heard  from  the  shepherds, 
pondering  them  in  her  heart  (Luke  ii.  19),  and  also 
that  she  kept  in  her  heart  the  words  spoken  by  the 
boy  Jesus  in  the  temple  (Luke  ii.  51).  It  seems 
natural  to  suppose  that  she  herself  was  authority  for 
the  statement  that  she  treasured  the  story  of  the  shep- 
herds and  the  words  which  Jesus  spoke  to  her  in  the 
temple.  And  if  that  be  the  case,  it  is  equally  natural 
to  suppose  that  she  was  the  source  of  information  in 
regard  to  these  events  out  of  the  early  life  of  Jesus, 
which  she  is  said  to  have  kept  in  her  heart.  It  is  possible 
that  Luke,  in  making  these  references  to  Mary's  pres- 
ervation of  incidents  out  of  the  early  life  of  Jesus, 
wishes  his  readers  to  understand  that  he  regards  her 
as  the  source  of  the  material  which  he  gives.^ 

Again,  the  fact  that  there  is  in  the  ApostoHc  Church 
no  trace  of  opposition  to  the  narrative  of  the  super- 
natural conception  is,  to  some  extent,  confirmatory  of 
its  historical  character. 

James   and   Jude,   the   brothers  of   Jesus  who  lived 

1  Ramsay,  in  his  book,  Was  Christ  born  in  BethleJmn  ?  speaks  in  very 
positive  terms  on  this  point. 


OVERSHADOWED   BY   THE   MOST   HIGH  9 

through  the  period  in  which  the  Synoptic  material 
took  form,  were  quaHfied  to  pass  judgment  on  this 
narrative.  Their  silence  must  be  allowed  some  weight. 
So,  too,  the  silence  of  John  is  significant.  It  was  in 
his  house  that  the  mother  of  Jesus  lived  after  the 
crucifixion,  and  hence  he  had  the  best  of  opportunities 
for  knowing  the  facts.  If  the  stories  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  had  been  regarded  by  him  as  unhistorical,  it 
seems  probable  that  he  would  have  opposed  their  ac- 
ceptance by  the  churches,  and  that  we  should  find 
some  trace  of  that  opposition  either  in  his  Gospel  or 
elsewhere. 

Finally,  the  historical  character  of  the  narrative  is 
favored  by  the  fact  that  it  cannot  well  be  explained 
as  a  myth.i  Since  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  Christianity 
did  not  require  the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus, 
there  was  no  occasion  for  the  formation  of  a  legend. 

The  narrative  in  Matthew  and  Luke  is  admitted  to 
be  of  Jewish-Christian  origin,  and  there  is  evidence 
that  the  Messiah's  birth  from  a  virgin  was  foreign  to 
the  thought  of  the  Jews.^  They  believed  that  the 
Messiah  would  have  a  purely  human  origin,  that  His 
father  would  belong  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  His 
mother  to  the  tribe  of  Dan.  The  passage  in  Isaiah 
vii.  14,  even  if  it  be  regarded  as  a  prediction  of  the 
supernatural  birth  of  the  Messiah,  was  not  so  under- 
stood among  the  Jews  of  the  first  century,  and  apart 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  219;  Neander,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  p.  lo. 

2  Vitbtx,Judische  Theologie,  1897,  PP-  354-358- 


10  THE   STUDENT'S    LIFE   OF  JESUS 

from  Matthew  i.  22-23  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
Christians  of  the  first  century  regarded  it  in  this  way. 
Since,  then,  neither  the  Jewish  nor  the  Jewish-Christian 
doctrines  required  the  supernatural  conception  of  the 
Messiah,  it  does  not  seem  possible  to  regard  the  narra- 
tive as  mythical,  unless  indeed  we  look  upon  it  as 
having  a  poetical  motive. 

JJnscriptural  Claims. 

It  has  just  been  intimated  that  there  is  in  the  New 
Testament  no  doctrinal  argument  for  the  supernatural 
conception  of  Jesus.  If  it  is  accepted  as  historical, 
it  must  be  on  the  authority  of  the  Gospels  which  we 
have  considered.  We  cannot  argue  on  the  basis  of 
the  New  Testament  that  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  re- 
quired the  supernatural  conception.  It  teaches  indeed 
that  He  was  without  sin,  but  never  suggests  that  this 
fact  was  due  to  a  supernatural  conception.  On  the 
contrary,  it  represents  His  sinless  character  as  the 
victorious  development  of  a  true  man. 

Moreover,  this  view  that  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus 
required  a  supernatural  conception  assumes  —  what  it 
manifestly  has  no  right  to  assume  —  that  if  Jesus  had 
but  one  human  parent.  His  human  nature  would  have 
been  morally  unique.  This  idea  lacks  support,  not  only 
in  the  New  Testament,  but  also  in  reason,  for  Jesus 
as  the  true  child  of  Mary  must  inherit  her  nature.  It 
was  the  recognition  of  this  fact  which  led  one  branch 
of  the  Church  to  declare  that  Mary  herself  "  from  the 


OVERSHADOWED   BY   THE   MOST   HIGH  II 

first  instant  of  her  conception  was  preserved  free  from 
all  stain  of  original  sin,"  ^ 

Again,  we  cannot  argue  on  the  basis  of  the  New 
Testament  that  the  divinity  of  Christ  required  the 
supernatural  conception. 

John  and  Paul,  the  writers  who  make  the  clearest 
references  to  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus,  do  not  suggest 
that  it  was  conditioned  upon  a  supernatural  conception. 
Whatever  significance  the  supernatural  conception  may 
have  had  for  them,  it  plainly  was  not  this.  They 
neither  inferred  the  divinity  of  Jesus  from  His  super- 
natural conception,  nor  held  this  to  be  a  necessary 
accompaniment  of  His  divinity.  Hence  if  the  super- 
natural conception  of  Jesus  is  accepted,  it  must  be  on 
the  testimony  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  as  far  as  the  New 
Testament  is  concerned.  There  is  no  doctrinal  argu- 
ment in  the  New  Testament  to  support  the  historical. 
The  Church,  in  teaching  that  the  supernatural  con- 
ception is  necessary  in  order  to  an  explanation  of  the 
character  and  work  of  Christ,  has  undoubtedly  gone 
''beyond  what  is  written."  We  may  hold  that  there  is 
a  strong  argument  for  the  historical  character  of  the 
narrative  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  in  estimating  the 
significance  of  this  narrative  for  Christianity  we  must 
never  forget  that  no  doctrinal  use  is  made  of  it  in  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  In  this  point,  there- 
fore, the  supernatural  conception  is  not  to  be  even 
distantly  associated  with  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection. 

^  Decretum  Pii  IX  de  immaculata  conceptione  beatce  virginis  Marice. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus 

The  Place. 

The  narratives  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  though 
seeming  to  differ  in  regard  to  the  Jiome  of  Mary 
and  Joseph,  agree  that  Jesus  was  born  in  Bethlehem 
(Luke  ii.  4;  Matt.  ii.  i).  The  difference  in  the  narra- 
tives is  this.  According  to  Luke,  Nazareth  was  plainly 
the  home  of  Mary.  She  went  to  Bethlehem  with 
Joseph  in  consequence  of  an  enrolment,  and  soon  after 
the  presentation  of  Jesus  in  the  temple  the  parents 
returned  to  Nazareth,  their  own  city.  But  according  to 
Matthew,  the  parents  fled  from  Bethlehem,  where  Jesus 
had  been  born,  to  Egypt,  and  on  their  return  from 
Egypt  they  would  have  gone  into  Judea,  presumably  to 
Bethlehem,  but  being  divinely  warned  against  this  they 
withdrew  into  Galilee,  and  came  and  dwelt  in  Nazareth. 
Now  if  we  had  the  narrative  of  Matthew  only,  we 
should  think  that  Bethlehem  was  the  original  home  of 
Mary,  and  that,  when  the  parents  went  to  Nazareth,  they 
went  to  a  strange  city,  where  they  had  not  lived  before.^ 
This  impression  is  deepened  by  the  circumstance  that, 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  239. 
12 


THE   BIRTH  AND   INFANCY  OF  JESUS  1 3 

according  to  Matthew  (ii.  16),  there  seems  to  have  been 
an  interval  of  about  two  years  between  the  birth  of 
Jesus  and  the  flight  into  Egypt,  and  that  this  interval 
was  spent  in  Bethlehem.  He  says  that  Herod,  in  order 
to  destroy  Jesus,  slew  the  children  of  Bethlehem  ''  from 
two  years  old  and  under."  Plainly  he  thought  that 
Jesus  might  be  as  much  as  two  years  old,  and  the 
evangelist  does  not  suggest  that  Herod's  calculation 
was  wrong.  Therefore  the  narrative  seems  to  imply 
that  Bethlehem  was  the  home  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
In  this  point  we  are  doubtless  to  follow  the  more 
detailed  account  of  Luke,  which  makes  Nazareth  their 
home.  But  since  Jesus  was  born  in  Bethlehem,  and 
since  on  the  basis  of  Micah's  words  (v.  2),  the  Jews 
expected  the  Messiah  would  come  from  Bethlehem 
(John  vii.  42),  it  would  have  been  easy  for  the  view 
to  arise  that  Bethlehem  was  indeed  His  home.  No 
one,  however,  would  have  thought  of  representing 
Nazareth  as  the  home  of  the  parents  of  the  Messiah, 
had  there  not  been  a  reliable  tradition  to  that  effect.^ 
The  fact  that  Matthew  and  Luke,  while  differing  in 
other  points,  agree  that  Jesus  was  born  in  Bethlehem, 
indicates  that  there  was  in  the  early  Church  only  one 
tradition  regarding  His  birthplace. 

According  to    Luke   (ii.   1-3),  the  fact  which  led  to 

1  The  author  of  the  first  Gospel  saw  a  fulfihiient  of  prophecy  in  the  fact 
that  Jesus  was  called  a  Nazarene  (ii.  23).  He  was  perhaps  led  to  this 
view  by  the  similarity  in  sound  between  the  word  Nazarene  and  the  Hebrew 
word  for  branch  (Isa.  xi.  i).  See  Toy,  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament, 
pp.  12-16  ;  Bohl,  Die  alttestainentlichen  Citate  im  N.7\,  pp.  15-18. 


14  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

the  birth  of  Jesus  in  Bethlehem  was  an  enrolment  that 
had  been  ordered  by  Augustus.  He  says  this  was  the 
first  enrolment,  made  when  Ouirinius  was  governor  of 
Syria.  Over  this  statement  of  Luke  there  has  been  a 
long  controversy,  some  scholars  affirming,  and  some 
denying,  its  historical  character.^  The  question  is  com- 
plex and  the  data  are  scanty.  No  fewer  than  five 
serious  objections  are  made  to  Luke's  statement.^  It  is 
said  that  history,  apart  from  Luke,  knows  nothing  of  a 
universal  census  made  in  the  time  of  Augustus  ;  that  a 
Roman  census  could  not  have  caused  Joseph  to  go  to 
Bethlehem,  taking  Mary  with  him ;  that  a  Roman 
census  could  not  have  been  made  in  Palestine  while 
Herod  was  king ;  that  Josephus  knows  nothing  of  a 
Roman  census  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Herod,  but 
speaks  of  the  census  in  6  a.d.  (or  7)  as  something 
new ;  and,  finally,  that  a  census  under  Quirinius  could 
not  have  occurred  in  the  time  of  Herod  because 
Ouirinius  was  not  governor  of  Syria  until  after  Herod's 
death. 

These  objections,  however,  cannot  be  at  once  ac- 
cepted as  decisive.  They  are  plainly  very  unequal  in 
value,  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  their  total  force 
is  sufficient  to  invalidate  Luke's  testimony. 

History,  it  is  said,  apart  from  Luke,  knows  nothing 
of  a  universal  census  made  in  the  time  of  Augustus. 

1  For  Literature  see  Schurer's  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  I.  426, 
427. 

2  Schiirer,  L  433-455. 


THE   BIRTH   AND    INFANCY   OF  JESUS  1 5 

But  it  is  important  to  notice  that  the  language  of  Luke 
does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  decree  of  Augustus 
was  realized  at  one  particular  time.  He  says  that 
Augustus  sent  out  a  decree,  and  says  also  that  a  census 
was  accordingly  taken  in  Palestine.  Hence  it  may  be 
held^  that  Luke's  language  refers  simply  to  the  initia- 
tion of  an  imperial  policy,  not  to  the  taking  of  a  single 
census.  And  further,  it  is  admitted  that  the  institution 
of  the  census  in  the  provinces  of  Rome  does  date  from 
the  time  of  Augustus,^  and  that  Augustus  also  revived 
the  census  of  Roman  citizens.^  Therefore  it  is  manifest 
that  there  is  some  support  for  the  statement  of  Luke, 
couched  as  it  is  in  very  general,  even  indefinite,  terms. 
Secondly,  the  objection  is  made  that  a  Roman  census 
could  not  have  caused  Joseph  and  Mary  to  go  to  Beth- 
lehem, Joseph  must,  on  the  contrary,  have  made  his 
report  in  Nazareth,  his  home,  and  it  was  not  necessary 
for  Mary  to  appear.  But  it  is  quite  plain  that  a  Roman 
decree  for  a  census  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the 
census  is  to  be  taken  in  the  Roman  manner.  Luke 
says  the  first  census  under  Quirinius  was  tribal  in  char- 
acter. Such  a  concession  to  Jewish  sentiment  accords 
with  the  policy  of  the  emperors,  and  especially  when 
we  consider  that  the  enrolment  in  question  was  prob- 


1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  horn  in  Bethlehem?  pp.  123,  124.     Also  Zumpt, 
Das  Geburtsjahr  Christi,  p.  148. 

2  Marquardt,  K'dmische  Staatsverzvaltiing,  II.  213,  214,  puts  the  edict 
27  B.C.     Luke's  indefinite  expression  may  allow  this  date  (ii.  i). 

'^  Zumpt,  pp.  1 16-129. 


1 6  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

ably  a  census  of  persons,^  rather  than  of  property. 
Moreover,  it  receives  confirmation  from  the  fact  that 
the  second  census  under  Quirinius,  made  in  6  a.d.,^ 
which,  according  to  Josephus,  was  a  census  of  prop- 
erty,^ was  accompanied  with  excitement  and  bloodshed.* 
It  follows  from  this  that  the  first  enrolment  was  of  a 
different  character  from  the  second.  Luke's  statement 
that  it  was  according  to  Jewish  ideas  is  confirmed,  as 
also  the  view  that  it  was  not  a  census  of  property. 
Why  Mary  went  with  Joseph  is  not  plain.  It  seems 
hardly  probable  that  she  would  take  a  long  journey, 
exposing  herself  to  hardships  at  such  a  time,  unless  it 
was  legally  required,^  or  was  prompted  by  some  strong 
religious  motive,  such  as  regard  for  the  prophecy  con- 
cerning the  Messiah  (Mic.  v.  2). 

The  third  objection  to  Luke's  statement  is  that  a 
Roman  census  could  not  have  been  made  in  Palestine 
while  Herod  was  king.  This  objection  loses  much 
of  its  force  when  we  remember  that  the  enrolment  of 
which  Luke  speaks  was  JewisJi  in  method,  though 
Roman  in  origin,  and  that  the  only  tax  which  it  can 
have  contemplated  was  a  poll-tax,  which  may  or  may 
not  have  been  sent  to  Rome. 

The  fourth  objection  is  that  Josephus  knows  nothing 
of  a  Roman  census  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Herod, 
but  speaks  of  the  census  in  7  a.d.  as  of  something  new 

1  Zumpt,  Das  GeburUjahr  Christi,  pp.  196,  197. 

2  Marquardt,  II.  213.  *  Acts  v.  37  ;   Antiquities,  xviii.  i.  I. 
^  Antiquities,  xviii.  i.  i.  ^  Zumpt,  pp.  203,  204. 


THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY   OF  JESUS  \y 

and  hitherto  unknown.  This  objection  has  much  or 
Httle  weight  according  as  one  estimates  the  historical 
trustworthiness  of  Luke  and  Josephus.  The  fact  that 
Josephus  does  not  mention  a  census  under  Herod  ought 
not,  in  my  judgment,  to  weigh  against  Luke's  statement 
Luke  does  mention  one,  and  as  a  historian,  he  is,  to  say 
the  least,  as  free  from  errors  as  Josephus. 

The  fifth  and  last  objection  to  Luke  is  that  a  census 
under  Quirinius  could  not  have  occurred  under  Herod, 
for  Quirinius  was  not  governor  of  Syria  in  Herod's 
lifetime.  This  argument  is  the  strongest  of  all  which 
Schiirer  brings  against  Luke.  Zumpt,^  however,  main- 
tains the  historical  character  of  Luke,  though  holding 
that  Quirinius  did  not  become  governor  of  Syria  until 
shortly  after  the  death  of  Herod.  Luke,  it  is  said,  does 
not  teach  that  Jesus  was  born  while  Quirinius  was  gov- 
ernor, but  only  that  his  birth  occurred  in  the  period  of 
the  first  enrolment  under  Quirinius.  This  enrolment, 
however,  according  to  Zumpt,  was  begun  by  another 
governor,  Sentius  Saturninus  (9-6  B.C.).  And  now 
Ramsay  2  argues  that  Quirinius  conducted  the  war 
against  the  Homonadenses  in  the  period  7-5  b.c,  and 
that,  as  the  commanding  officer  in  Syria,  Luke  would 
naturally  call  him,  in  Greek,  rjyeixoiv,  which  is  rendered 
governor  in  the  Revised  Version.  Neither  of  these 
arguments  is  wholly  satisfactory.  If  Luke  knew  that 
Saturninus  was  governor  of  Syria,  would  he  have  given 

1  Das  Geburtsjahr  Christi,  pp.  62-71. 

2  Was  Christ  born  in  Bethlehem  ?  pp.  227-248. 
C 


1 8  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

this  title  to  Quirinius  ?  And  if  he  knew  that  Ouirinius 
was  carrying  on  a  war  against  the  Homonadenses, 
while  Saturninus  was  in  charge  of  the  ordinary  affairs 
of  the  province,  would  it  not  have  been  natural  to  use 
the  name  Saturninus  rather  than  Ouirinius  ? 

As  regards  the  explanation  by  Zumpt,  it  hardly 
accords  with  the  language  of  Luke,  for  that  seems  to 
imply  that  the  enrolment  as  a  whole  belonged  in  the 
time  of  Quirinius'  governorship,  and  not  simply  that 
it  was  completed  under  him.  Thus,  there  are  points 
in  Luke's  statement  on  which  one  could  wish  further 
information,  but  I  do  not  see  sufficient  evidence  for 
the  charge  that  it  is  unhistorical.  Therefore,  I  think 
of  Joseph  and  Mary  as  journeying  from  Nazareth  to 
Bethlehem,  Joseph  at  least  to  be  enrolled,  and  of  this 
enrolment  as  a  part  of  a  general  policy  of  Augustus, 
with  the  realization  of  which  in  Syria  Quirinius  was 
associated. 

Regarding  the  exact  spot  where  Jesus  was  born,  we 
have  a  tradition  mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr,  which 
was  adopted  by  Origen,  to  the  effect  that  Jesus  was 
born  in  a  cave  near  the  village  of  Bethlehem.  If 
Jesus  was  born  in  a  cave,  it  was  at  least  one  which 
had  been  used  (perhaps  was  still  used)  as  a  stable,  as 
the  word  manger  indicates  (Luke  ii.  7). 

The  extreme  lowliness  of  Christ's  birth  is  a  pledge 
of  the  historical  character  of  the  narrative.  The  Jewish 
Christians  would  not  have  invented  such  a  story,  for 
the  common  belief,  based  on  Old  Testament  prophecy, 


THE  BIRTH   AND   INFANCY  OF  JESUS  1 9 

was  that  the  Christ  would  come  in  glory.  No  one 
thought,  before  He  came,  that  He  would  come  in  pov- 
erty ;  and  after  He  had  come  and  lived  His  life,  no 
Christian  would  have  ventured  to  represent  Him  as 
having  been  born  in  a  stable  if  there  had  not  been  a 
reliable  tradition  which  affirmed  this. 

The  Date. 

The  exact  year  of  Jesus'  birth  is  unknown.  Dionys- 
ius  the  Little,  a  Scythian  by  race,  abbot  of  a  monastery 
in  Rome  where  he  died  about  556  a.d.,  introduced  the 
present  Christian  reckoning,  according  to  which  the 
year  of  Christ's  incarnation  and  birth  was  the  year  754 
of  Rome.i  As  Dionysius  began  his  era  with  the  incar- 
nation, he  thought  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  belonging 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  year  i.  In  the  ninth  century 
it  became  customary  to  begin  the  year  i  with  the  birth 
of  Christ,  rather  than  with  the  incarnation.^ 

It  is  now  known  that  the  reckoning  of  Dionysius  was 
wrong,  and  that  Jesus  was  born  some  years  earlier  than 
he  thought,  but  how  many  years  earlier  is  still  a  dis- 
puted question.  The  data  that  fix  the  approximate 
year  are  the  following:  (i)  Jesus  was  born  before  the 
death  of  Herod  the  Great  (Matt.  ii.  i),  and  Herod  died 
shortly  before  the  Passover  of  the  year  750  of  Rome.^ 

1  This  date  was  held  a  century  before  Dionysius  by  the  Egyptian  monk 
Panodorus,  but  the  Roman  abbot  first  brought  it  into  general  use. 

2  Gieseler,  Kirchengeschichte,  I.  70. 

^  Josephus,  Antiquities,  xvii.  8.  I  ;  9.  3  ;  Caspari,  Introduction  to  the 
Life  of  Christ,  pp.  28-34,  puts  Herod's  death  two  or  three  years  later. 


20  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

The  Gospels,  however,  do  not  indicate  what  interval 
elapsed  between  the  birth  of  Jesus  and  the  death  of 
Herod.  Weiss  ^  assumes  that  Jesus  was  about  a  year 
old  when  the  Magi  came,  and  therefore  somewhat  more 
than  a  year  old  when  Herod  died;  Keim^  thinks  He 
was  about  four  years  old  when  Herod  died,  and  about 
two  years  old  when  the  Magi  came.  (2)  According  to 
Luke  iii.  1-23,  Jesus  began  His  ministry  when  He  was 
about  thirty  years  old,  and  this  was  in  the  fifteenth  year 
of  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  Both  these  statements  how- 
ever are  somewhat  indefinite.  It  might  be  said  of  a 
man  whose  age  was  anywhere  between  twenty-nine 
and  thirty-one  that  he  was  about  thirty  {laaei  iroiv 
TpLOLKovra),  but  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  Luke's 
expression  allows  us  to  think  that  Jesus  was  fiv7n  two 
to  five  years  more  than  thirty  when  He  began  His  min- 
istry.2  Then,  as  to  the  other  statement,  it  is  not  certain 
how  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  is  to  be  reckoned, 
whether  from  the  time  when  he  became  sole  head  of 
the  government*  (14  a.d.),  or  from  the  time  when  he 
became  co-regent  with  Augustus^  (11  a.d.).  In  the 
latter  case,  the  beginning  of  Christ's  ministry  fell  in 
the  year  26 ;  in  the  former  case,  in  29.  It  is  to  be  con- 
ceded that  Luke,  writing  in  a  province  and  for  provin- 

^  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  262.  "^  Jesus  o/Nazara,  II.  iio. 

2  O.  Holtzmann,  Neiitestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  p.  123. 

*  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  judischeti  Volkes,  I.  369  ;  Holtzmann,  p.  121; 
Caspari,  Int7-oduction,  pp.  41-45. 

^  Zumpt,  Das  Geburtsjahr  Christi,  p.  301  ;  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  born 
in  Bethlehem  ?  p.  200. 


THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY   OF  JESUS  21 

cial  readers,  may  have  reckoned  from  1 1  a.d.,  when 
Tiberius  received  equal  authority  with  Augustus  over 
the  provinces.  This  is  favored  by  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  born  before  the  Passover  of  750  (4  B.C.),  and  there- 
fore, in  26  A.D.,  He  may  have  been,  as  Luke  says,  about 
thirty  years  old.  But  if  we  count  the  years  of  Tiberius 
from  14  A.D.,  then,  in  His  fifteenth  year,  Jesus  must 
have  been  at  least  thirty-two  years  old,  which  would 
scarcely  accord  with  Luke's  statement.  And  further, 
if  Jesus  was  born  in  the  days  of  the  first  enrolment 
under  Ouirinius,  then,  whether  with  Ramsay,  we  assign 
that  enrolment  to  the  year  6  B.C.,  or  with  Zumpt,  sup- 
pose it  to  have  been  extended  over  a  period  of  several 
years,  terminating  in  4  B.C.,  we  cannot  come  down  later 
than  the  year  26  for  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  ministry 
without  putting  a  severe  strain  upon  Luke's  expression 
that,  when  His  ministry  began.  He  was  about  thirty 
years  old.  If  then  Luke's  data  are  harmonized  by  the 
hypothesis  that  he  counted  the  years  of  Tiberius  from 
II  A.D.,  this  fact  makes  that  hypothesis  reasonable.  (3) 
A  third  datum  which  has  a  bearing  on  the  question  is 
John  ii.  20.  When  Jesus  spoke  the  enigmatic  word 
about  destroying  the  temple  and  building  it  in  three 
days,  the  Jews  said  that  the  temple  had  been  forty 
and  six  years  in  building.  Now  Josephus^  tells  us  that 
Herod  began  the  temple  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his 
reign,  probably  20  b.c.  By  adding  to  this  forty-six  years 
we  are  brought,  approximately,  to  the  year  26  a.d.,  as 

1  AntiguUies,  xv.  11.  i. 


22  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

the  year  of  the  first  Passover  in  Christ's  ministry.  If 
He  was  then  about  thirty  years  old,  He  must  have  been 
born  about  5  B.C.,  and  hence  this  datum  supports  the  last. 
(4)  The  fact  that  there  was  a  conjunction  of  Jupiter 
and  Saturn  in  747  of  Rome  (May  29,  recurring  Octo- 
ber I  and  December  5),  and  of  three  planets,  Jupiter, 
Saturn,  and  Mars,  in  748  of  Rome,  has  no  independent 
value  for  the  determination  of  the  exact  year  of  Jesus' 
birth.  For,  first,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  a  conjunc- 
tion of  planets  would  have  been  called  a  star  {a<jTrip\ 
the  term  used  in  Matthew ;  and  second,  the  text  does 
not  indicate  that  the  appearance  of  the  star  was 
believed  to  coincide  with  the  birth  of  the  Messiah. 
For  Herod  slew  all  the  children  in  Bethlehem  who 
were  two  years  old  or  less  than  that  (Matt.  ii.  16).  This 
shows  that  Herod  did  not  believe  the  child  to  be  more 
than  two  years  old,  his  confidence  resting  upon  the 
statement  of  the  Magi;  and  it  also  shows  that  he 
thought  the  child  might  be  of  any  age  under  two  years. 
In  other  words,  he  thought  the  star  of  the  Magi  might 
have  foretold  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  just  at  hand,  rather 
than  coincided  with  it. 

It  seems  on  the  whole  not  unlikely  that  the  con- 
junctions of  7  B.C.  and  6  b.c.  stood  in  some  causal 
connection  with  the  visit  of  the  Magi  to  Bethlehem, 
but  they  have  no  scientific  and  independent  value. 

These  are  the  data  in  the  Gospels  which  bear  upon 
the  year  of  Jesus'  birth.  They  fix  the  time  approxi- 
mately but  not  exactly.     They  plainly  allow  differences 


THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY   OF  JESUS  23 

in  computation  up  to  at  least  three  years,  from  4  to 
7  B.C.  Luke's  two  more  specific  designations  seem  to 
point  to  the  year  26  a.d.  as  the  year  of  the  beginning 
of  Christ's  ministry,  and  hence  to  the  year  5  B.C.  as  the 
year  of  his  birth,  but  the  question  must  still  remain 
open.i 

As  regards  the  month  and  day  of  Christ's  birth,  the 
Gospels  leave  us  in  complete  ignorance.  The  fact  that 
Zacharias  was  of  the  course  of  Abijah  (Luke  i.  5), 
the  eighth  of  the  twenty-four  courses  of  priests,  gives 
us  no  help.  For  even  if  we  admit  that  this  course 
ministered  in  the  months  of  April  and  October  in  the 
year  749  of  Rome,  that  circumstance  is  of  no  value, 
since  it  is  not  known  what  time  elapsed  between  the 
sojourn  of  Zacharias  in  Jerusalem  and  the  birth  of  the 
Baptist.  But  if  the  reference  to  Abijah's  course  does 
not  fix  the  month  of  John's  birth,  it  plainly  has  no 
significance  with  regard  to  the  month  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (died  220  a.d.)  says  that 
some  people  thought  that  Jesus  was  born  on  the  19th  or 
20th  of  April,  others  that  He  was  born  on  the  20th  of 
May.  He  himself  wisely  regarded  the  question  as  an 
unprofitable  one.  In  Egypt,  in  the  third  century,  some 
Christians  observed  the  6th  of  January  as  the  date  of 
Christ's  birth.  The  present  observance  of  December 
25   is  not  mentioned  earlier  than  the  fourth  century. 

1  Turner  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  I.,  puts  the  birth  of 
Jesus  7-6  B.C.,  His  baptism  in  26  (26-27),  and  holds  a  ministry  of  2-3 
years. 


24  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

There  is  no  evidence  that  there  was  a  trustworthy  tra- 
dition in  support  of  this  date.  Neander^  thinks  the 
observance  may  have  sprung  from  some  apocryphal 
document,  and  that  its  introduction  into  the  Church 
may  have  been  favored  by  the  proximity  of  certain 
heathen  festivals,  which  Christians  were  inclined  to 
attend.  He  thinks  that  the  Church,  in  order  to  keep 
its  members  away  from  these  heathen  feasts,  estab- 
lished a  festival  at  home  for  the  same  week,  and  per- 
haps for  the  same  day.  Against  December  as  the 
month  of  Jesus'  birth,  and  against  the  winter  season 
in  general,  some  weight  must  be  given  to  the  fact 
that  the  shepherds  were  out  with  their  flocks.^  Most 
critical  scholars  agree  that  the  month  and  day  of 
Christ's  birth  are  wholly  unknown. 

TJie  Shepherds. 

The  story  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  first  announced 
to  shephei'ds  who  were  keeping  watch  by  night  over 
their  flock  (Luke  ii.  8-10)  is  in  accord  with  the  lowli- 
ness of  that  birth.  Yet  it  was  not  announced  to  them 
because  they  were  poor  and  lowly.  These  men  are 
represented  as  belonging  to  the  little  circle  who  had 
a  living  faith,  and  who  were  longing  for  the  Messiah. 
Therefore  they  were  qualified,  as  others  were  not,  to 
receive  heavenly  communications  about  the  Messiah's 
birth.     They   did   not   take   offence  at  the  mean  sur- 

1  Kirchengeschichte,  III.  438,  4th  ed, 

^  Robinson,  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,  ii.  96-100. 


THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY   OF  JESUS  25 

roundings  of  Jesus,  but  glorified  God  that  they  had 
seen  Him,  and  straightway  became  heralds  of  the  glad 
tidings  to  others. 

The  exact  place  from  which  the  shepherds  came  is 
not  indicated.  Luke  only  says  that  they  were  "  of  the 
same  country"  to  which  Bethlehem  belonged.  The 
language  of  Luke  ii.  15,  20,  where  the  shepherds  speak 
of  going  to  Bethlehem  and  then  of  returning,  i.e.  to 
their  homes,  suggests  that  they  were  not  men  of  Beth- 
lehem itself,  but  lived  at  some  distance. 

The  message  of  the  angels  was  a  divine  response  to 
the  longing  of  these  pious  souls.  Some  response  was 
sure  to  be  made  in  due  season,  for  God  does  not  leave 
human  longings  for  His  salvation  unanswered.  The 
particular  response  of  Luke's  narrative,  which  is  in 
the  form  of  a  glorious  vision,  was  in  keeping  with  the 
importance  of  the  event  for  which  they  had  been 
longing. 

The  essential  claim  of  the  story  is  that  the  birth  of 
Jesus  was  divinely  made  known  to  a  company  of  men 
who  were  fitted  to  receive  and  appreciate  the  tidings. 
It  is  a  matter  of  secondary  importance  whether  the 
communication  was  made  in  an  external  way,  with 
visible  accompaniments,  or,  as  is  more  probable,  in 
a  purely  spiritual  manner. 

The  shepherds  at  once  proved  the  truth  of  the  heav- 
enly message  by  searching  until  they  found  the  child 
in  the  manger.  By  this  discovery  their  faith  was  con- 
firmed, and  they  become  heralds  of  the  angelic  word 


26  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

(Luke  ii.  17).  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  their  visit 
tended  to  confirm  the  faith  of  the  parents  in  the  future 
of  their  child,  and  to  deepen  their  sense  of  responsibil- 
ity for  His  care. 

Circumcision  and  Presentation. 

Jesus  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  after  birth, 
according  to  the  law  (Lev.  xii.  3;  Luke  ii.  21).  By 
this  rite  He  became  a  child  of  the  covenant  Vv^hich  had 
been  made  with  Abraham.  It  was  the  beginning  of 
His  subjection  to  the  law  which,  the  apostle  says,  was 
necessary  if  He  was  to  deliver  those  who  were  under 
the  law  (Gal.  iv.  4-5).  At  this  time  He  received  the 
name  Jcstcs,  which,  though  in  common  use,  was  given 
to  Him  in  view  of  His  mission  (Luke  i.  31).  It  fitted 
Him  in  a  perfect  manner,  because  He  was,  as  the  name 
signifies,  the  help  or  deliverance  of  Jehovah. 

Jesus  was  presented  to  the  Lord  in  the  temple  on  the 
forty-first  day  after  His  birth  (Lev.  xii.  1-4 ;  Luke  ii. 
22-24).  Before  this  time  the  mother  was  ceremonially 
unclean,  and  could  not  appear  in  the  temple.  The 
presentation  was  an  acknowledgment  that  the  first- 
born son  belonged  in  a  peculiar  way  to  the  Lord,  to 
be  exclusively  His  for  service.  But  after  the  tribe  of 
Levi  was  chosen  for  the  service  of  the  Lord'(Num.  viii), 
the  first-born  sons  of  other  tribes  were  redeemed  by  the 
payment  of  five  sacred  shekels  (this  shekel  variously 
estimated  at  from  fifty  to  eighty  cents).  Such  a  redemp- 
tion of  course  took  place  in  the  case  of  Jesus.     It  has 


THE  BIRTH   AND   INFANCY  OF   JESUS  27 

been  pointed  out  that  this  narrative,  by  its  very  nature, 
commends  itself  as  historical.  Christian  legend  would 
not  have  represented  Jesus  as  being  redeemed  from 
the  service  of  the  Lord,  who  yet  was  held  to  be 
divinely  appointed  to  that  service. 

The  other  ceremony  associated  with  this  visit  to  the 
temple  was  that  of  purification.  Mary  brought  the 
offering  of  the  poor,  either  two  doves  or  two  pigeons. 
One  of  these  was  for  a  sin-offering,  the  other  for  a 
burnt-offering.  One  was  in  view  of  the  ceremonial 
defilement  which  had  kept  her  from  the  temple,  the 
other  to  restore  fellowship  with  the  Lord  (Lev.  xii.  8). 

While  the  parents  were  in  the  temple,  an  event  trans- 
pired which  was  akin  to  the  visit  of  the  shepherds.  As 
these  had  been  informed  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  and  had 
come  to  see  Him,  so  Simeon,  described  as  a  man  of 
genuine  piety  like  Zacharias,  came  into  the  temple 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and  by  the  Spirit 
recognized  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  (Luke  ii.  25-35).  He 
took  Him  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  God  for  the  sight. 
From  the  words  of  praise  that  he  uttered,  two  things 
appear.  First,  he  had  been  assured  that  he  should  not 
die  until  he  had  seen  the  promised  Messiah.  And, 
second,  his  conception  of  the  work  of  the  Messiah  was 
more  catholic  and  spiritual  than  that  of  the  religious 
leaders  of  the  day.  He  thought  that  Gentiles  no  less 
than  Jews  were  to  share  in  the  Messianic  glory,  and 
he  thought  of  the  Messiah  as  a  sufferer,  one  spoken 
against.     Opposition  to  Him  would  be  carried  so  far 


28  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

that  it  would  be  like  a  sword  in  the  mother's  heart. 
The  child  was  not  to  be  the  Messiah  of  the  popular 
expectation,  but  one  over  whom  many  would  stumble 
(Isa.  viii.  14-15). 

Simeon's  praise  was  continued  by  Anna,  an  aged 
widow,  who  like  Mary  was  of  Galilean  origin  (Luke  ii. 
36-38).  As  far  as  the  narrative  informs  us,  she  was 
led  by  Simeon's  words  to  accept  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
She  seems  immediately  to  have  begun  telling  of  Jesus 
to  those  who  were  waiting  for  the  redemption  of  Israel, 
and  deserves  to  be  classed  with  the  shepherds  as  one  of 
the  first  evangehsts. 

After  the  presentation  of  Jesus  in  the  temple  the 
parents  returned,  according  to  Luke,  to  Nazareth 
(ii.  39).  At  this  point,  however,  we  must  depart  from 
his  narrative,  if  we  regard  the  events  of  Matthew  ii.  as 
historical,  and  must  suppose  that  the  parents  remained 
in  Bethlehem.  It  was  there  that  the  wise  men  found 
them  when  Jesus  was  perhaps  a  year  old. 

The  Magi. 

We  know  from  Matthew  (ii.  1-12)  that  the  Magi 
were  from  the  East  and  were  Gentiles,  but  here  positive 
knowledge  ends.  Whether  they  came  from  Arabia  (so 
the  Fathers,  Edersheim,  Keim,  etc.),  or  from  Media  or 
Persia  (Weiss),  is  wholly  uncertain.  Astrologers  were 
common  all  through  the  Orient,  and  the  gifts  which  the 
Magi  brought  to  Bethlehem,  though  produced  largely 
in  Arabia,  could  doubtless  be  obtained  in  any  of  the 


THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY   OF  JESUS  29 

great  markets  of  the  East.  There  is  no  suggestion  as 
to  the  number  or  rank  of  the  Magi.  The  view  that 
they  were  kings,  three  in  number  (Caspar,  Melchior, 
Balthasar),  has  of  course  no  basis  whatever.  It  may 
be  inferred  from  Matthew's  narrative  that  they  were 
astrologers,  and  also  that  they  had  some  idea  of  the 
spiritual  significance  which  was  wrapped  up  in  the 
promised  King  of  the  Jews.  It  is  not  probable  that 
they  came  to  pay  homage  to  one  who  in  their  thought 
was  to  become  a  great  political  ruler  and  nothing  more. 
Their  knowledge  of  a  promised  King  of  the  Jews,  and 
of  His  significance  for  the  Gentiles,  had  doubtless  been 
received  from  the  writings  of  the  Jews,  who  for  several 
centuries  had  been  scattered  through  the  East. 

The  Magi  read  the  birth  of  the  coming  King  in  the 
appearance  of  a  star.  What  this  star  was  cannot  be 
determined.  Since  Kepler  showed  that  there  was  a 
conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  in  747  of  Rome,  some 
students  have  believed  that  this  conjunction  at  least 
awakened  the  attention  of  the  Magi ;  others  that  it  was 
the  very  star  of  the  Magi ;  and  still  others  that  the 
bright  star  which  appeared  in  1604  in  close  proximity 
to  these  planets  had  also  appeared  in  747  of  Rome, 
and  was  the  star  of  the  Magi.  But  the  appearance  of 
this  star  at  that  time  is  an  assumption,  and  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  a  conjunction  of  planets  meets  the 
requirements  of  the  narrative. 

The  account  in  Matthew  does  not  require  that  we 
should  think   of   a  supernatural  star.     The    statement 


30  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

that  the  star  **went  before  them"  from  Jerusalem  to 
Bethlehem,  and  that  it  "  stood  "  over  the  place  where  the 
child  was,  is  consistent  with  the  view  that  it  was  one  of 
the  heavenly  bodies  moving  in  obedience  to  its  divinely 
appointed  laws.  The  thought  of  the  narrative  is  that  as 
they  journeyed  toward  Bethlehem,  whither  they  had 
been  directed  from  Jerusalem,  they  again  saw  the  star 
which  they  had  seen  in  the  East,  and  which  afterward 
they  had  apparently  not  seen  for  a  time ;  and  when 
they  reached  Bethlehem  it  seemed  to  be  directly  over 
them.  This  reappearance  of  the  star,  as  they  looked 
southward  toward  Bethlehem,  naturally  gave  them  confi- 
dence in  the  word  of  the  scribes,  and  they  rejoiced  with 
exceeding  great  joy.  It  was  therefore  some  natural 
phenomenon  in  the  sky  which  the  wise  men  saw  while 
in  the  East,  and  again  as  they  journeyed  from  Jerusa- 
lem to  Bethlehem.  Their  belief  that  it  heralded  the 
birth  of  the  King  of  the  Jews  was  a  part  of  their  astro- 
logical superstition,  but  a  superstition  by  which,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  they  were  led  to  the  truth. 

In  regard  to  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  star, 
nothing  definite  can  be  ascertained.  It  may  be  inferred 
from  Matthew  ii.  i6  that  it  had  appeared  not  more  than 
two  years  before  the  Magi  reached  Jerusalem.  How 
old  Jesus  was  when  the  Magi  came,  is  also  uncertain. 
We  do  not  know  that  the  Magi  thought  the  appearance 
of  the  star  was  coincident  with  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and 
do  not  know  how  long  the  Magi  had  been  on  their 
journey. 


THE   BIRTH   AND   INFANCY   OF   JESUS  3 1 

The  significance  of  the  story  of  the  Magi  lies  in  the 
fact  that,  while  Herod  and  most  of  the  Jews  did  not 
know  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  when  they  did  know  it 
refused  to  accept  Him,  there  were  Gentiles  from  afar 
who  knew  of  His  birth  and  who  paid  Him  reverence. 
Thus  it  was  a  symbol  of  what  was  to  take  place  on  a 
large  scale  in  the  centuries  to  come.  Israel  has  rejected 
the  Messiah,  and  the  Gentiles  have  received  Him. 

Herod  Baffled. 

We  can  readily  believe  that  Joseph  and  Mary,  know- 
ing the  suspicious  and  cruel  character  of  Herod,  besought 
the  wise  men  not  to  return  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  it  is  also 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  visit  of  the  wise  men  at  the 
court  of  Herod,  together  with  the  scribes'  announcement 
to  the  king  that  the  Messiah  should  be  born  in  Bethle- 
hem, awakened  the  fears  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  so 
led  to  the  flight  into  Egypt. 

The  plan  by  which  Herod  hoped  to  get  possession  of 
the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews  was  in  keeping  with  his 
shrewdness ;  and  his  act,  when  this  plan  was  proven 
futile,  was  in  keeping  with  his  usual  cruelty  (Matt.  ii. 
7-8;  16-18);  for,  according  to  Josephus,  he  put  to 
death  numbers  of  his  own  family  circle,  among  them 
three  of  his  sons  and  his  beloved  Mariamne,  and  stained 
himself  with  numerous  murders  outside  his  own  family. 
When  baffled  by  the  Magi,  he  slew  the  male  children  in 
Bethlehem  and  in  all  its  borders  who  were  two  years  old 
or  less.     How  many  were  slain  is  quite  uncertain,  for 


32  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

we  do  not  know  what  population  Bethlehem  had  at  that 
time.  The  estimate  of  Farrar,  adopted  by  Edersheim,^ 
is  that  the  number  of  the  slain  did  not  exceed  twenty. 

The  flight  into  Egypt  involved  a  journey  of  at  least 
225  miles,  and,  considering  the  circumstances  of  Joseph, 
and  the  haste  of  his  departure,  it  is  probable  that  it 
involved  a  good  deal  of  hardship  for  the  parents  and 
their  child.  There  were  many  Jews  in  Egypt,^  and 
among  them  Joseph  could  doubtless  find  shelter  and 
support.  How  long  he  remained  is  not  exactly  known. 
Herod  died  shortly  before  the  Passover  of  750  of  Rome, 
and  apparently  Joseph  returned  soon  after  that  event. 
If,  then,  Jesus  was  born  in  749  of  Rome,  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt  cannot  well  have  extended  beyond  a  few 
months. 

1  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  I.  214. 

2  Josephus,  Ajiliquities,  xiv.  7.  2. 


CHAPTER   III 

The  Education  of  Jesus 

The  Home  Circle. 

We  know  the  most  essential  things  about  the  home  of 
Jesus,  for  we  know  the  character  of  Joseph  and  Mary, 
and  we  also  know  something  about  the  brothers  and  sis- 
ters. Joseph  and  Mary  belonged  to  that  small  circle  of 
Jews  who,  even  in  the  time  when  Pharisaism  dominated 
the  life  of  the  people,  maintained  a  spiritual  religion. 
To  this  circle  belonged  John  the  Baptist  with  his  par- 
ents, and  also  Simeon  and  Anna.  Joseph  was  a  right- 
eous man  (Matt.  i.  19),  and  obedient  to  the  will  of  the 
Lord  as  that  was  made  known  to  him  (Matt.  i.  24;  ii. 
14,  21-22).  Like  Abraham,  he  had  a  heart  that  was 
open  to  receive  heavenly  messages,  and  he  was  not  slow 
to  respond  to  them.  He  appears  in  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive as  having  implicit  trust  in  Mary,  and  the  tenderest 
regard  for  her  (Matt.  i.  19-21).  He  seems  to  have 
taught  Jesus  his  own  trade  of  carpenter  (Mark  vi.  3  ; 
Matt.  xiii.  55),  thus  fitting  his  child  to  support  Himself. 
He  lived  until  Jesus  was  twelve  years  old  (Luke  ii.  42), 
and  perhaps  considerably  longer,^  but  he  seems  to  have 

1  See  Delitzsch,  Ein  Tag  in  Capernaum^  1886,  p.  67. 
D  33 


34  THE   STUDENT'S    LIFE  OF  JESUS 

died  before  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  began  (Matt, 
xiii.  55  ;  Mark  vi.  3).  Jesus  never  refers  in  a  direct 
manner  to  His  earthly  father,  but  it  seems  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  fatherhood  which  He  had  known  in  the 
home  in  Nazareth  was  to  him  a  stepping-stone  to  the 
conception  and  the  experience  of  the  heavenly  father- 
hood ;  and  if  so,  it  must  have  been  rich  in  love  and  wis- 
dom. Again,  it  may  be  allowable  to  think  that  Jesus' 
appreciation  of  childhood,  His  love  for  children,  and  His 
sympathy  with  them,  argue  sweet  memories  of  His  own 
childhood,  and  hence  throw  a  gracious  light  upon 
Joseph  and  Mary  (Mark  x.  13-16;  ix.  36;  Matt,  xviii. 
10).  From  the  glimpses  which  we  have  into  the  early 
life  of  Jesus,  and  from  His  work  as  a  teacher,  we  derive 
the  impression  that  the  development  of  His  inner  life 
had  been  normal,  an  even  and  beautiful  growth ;  and 
this,  especially  when  we  think  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus, 
is  most  easily  understood  if  the  influence  of  Joseph 
and  Mary  was  even  and  beautiful,  and  the  home  life  in 
Nazareth  a  normal  home  life. 

Of  Mary's  mental  and  moral  character  we  have  some- 
what fuller  traces  than  we  have  regarding  Joseph's  char- 
acter. The  high  favor  bestowed  upon  her  in  making 
her  the  mother  of  the  Messiah,  however  we  judge  of 
the  circumstances  of  Jesus'  birth,  implies  exceptional 
purity  of  heart  and  obedience  to  the  will  of  God. 

It  may  be  inferred  from  the  song  of  Mary  ^  (Luke  i. 

1  There  is  no  good  reason  apparent  why  Mary  may  not  have  been  the 
author  of  this  song.     She  surely  had  ample  reason  for  singing,  and  the 


THE   EDUCATION   OF  JESUS  35 

46-55)  that  she  had  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  / 
Old  Testament,  for  her  deepest  feeHngs  express  them-j 
selves  easily  in  Old  Testament  language.     Her  attend- 1 
ance  on  the  temple  services  at  seasons  when  her  presence  1 
was  not  required  by  law  indicates  that  she  found  delight' 
in  those  services  (Luke  ii.  22,  41).      Mary  was    of  ai 
thoughtful  and  contemplative  spirit,  as  is  indicated  by    , 
the  statements  that  she  kept  the  various  incidents  regard-  / 
ing  Jesus,  pondering  them  in  her  heart  (Luke  ii.  19,  51).  / 
The  fact  that  Mary  did  not  fully  realize  what  Jesus 
was,  either  in  His  childhood  or  in  His  ministry  (Luke 
ii.  33;  Mark  iii.  21,  31;  John  ii.  3,  4),  is  not  strange, 
but  perfectly  natural.     In  the  long  years  spent  in  Naza- 
reth, Jesus  had  appeared  to  her  as  one  of  her  other 
children,  except  in  His  spotless  purity.     There  was  no 
other  indication  of  His  Messianic  character  and  mission. 
This  failure  to  realize  fully  what  Jesus  was,  made  it 
possible  for  the  mother  to  treat  Him  in  a  natural  way. 
Nor  is  it  strange  that  Mary  did  not  fully  understand 
Jesus  after  He  began  His  Messianic  work.     His  ideal 
of  the  Messiahship  was  widely  different  from  the  popu- 
lar thought,  and  so,  doubtless,  from  her  thought;  and 
even  the  disciples,  who  were  constantly  with  Him,  came 
but  slowly  to  understand  Him.     Therefore  Mary's  atti- 
tude toward  Jesus  is  neither  an  indication  of  intellec- 
tual poverty  or  of  spiritual  narrowness. 

Beside  Joseph   and  Mary,  there  were   in   the  home 

hymn  admirably  suits  the  occasion.     The  fact  that  it  is  largely  an  echo  of 
Hannah's  song  is  nothing  against  its  historical  character. 


36  THE   STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

of  Jesus  four  brothers^  and  at  least  two  sisters,  all 
younger  than  He  (Mark  vi.  3 ;  Luke  ii.  7 ;  Matt.  i.  25). 
Two  of  His  brothers  were  men  of  ability  and  became 
influential  in  the  early  Christian  church.  James 
was  highly  esteemed  even  by  the  unbelieving  Jews. 
Together  with  Peter  and  John  he  was  a  ''  pillar "  of 
the  church  in  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  9).  Both  James  and 
Jude  have  the  imperishable  honor  of  being  among  the 
authors  of  the  New  Testament.  These  brothers,  even 
as  their  mother,  did  not  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Mes- 
siah (Mark  iii.  21  ;  John  vii.  5),  but  this  fact  does  not 
imply  that,  prior  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  there  had  been 
a  schism  in  the  family.  The  household  was  divided, 
not  by  anything  in  the  personal  character  of  Jesus,  but 
by  His  Messianic  claim. 

The  family  of  Joseph  and  Mary  were  poor  but  not 
dependent.  The  prayer  of  Agur  was  fulfilled  in  their 
case:  "Give  me  neither  poverty  nor  riches  "  (Prov.  xxx. 
8).  Joseph  was  a  carpenter  (Matt.  xiii.  55)  and  sup- 
ported his  family  by  the  labor  of  his  hands,  but  labor 
was  held  in  high  honor  among  the  Jews.  Even  boys 
who  were  set  apart  to  the  life  of  scribes  learned  some 
trade.2  •'  Love  work  "  was  the  motto  of  Rabbi  Shema- 
iah,  and  another  teacher  said,  "  Great  is  work,  for  it 
honors  its  master."  ^ 

1  Modern  critics  are  generally  agreed  that  the  brothers  of  Jesus  were 
not  cousins  (so  Hegesippus, second  century),  nor  half-brothers  (so  Origen, 
third  century),  but  children  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 

2  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrhundert  des  Heils,  i.  i6o. 

3  See  Yyt\\\.z^Q)i\.,  JUdisches  Handwerkerleben  zur  Zeitjesu,  p.  27. 


THE   EDUCATION  OF  JESUS  37 

Such  was  the  home  of  which  Jesus  was  a  member 
until  about  thirty  years  of  age.  All  that  we  know 
suggests  that  it  was  a  pure  and  noble  family,  in  which 
were  manifest  the  best  spiritual  characteristics  of  an 
ancestral  line  that  included  some  of  the  greatest  names 
in  Israelis-  history.  Both  Joseph  and  Mary,  according 
to  tradition,  belonged  to  the  lineage  of  David  (Matt, 
i.  20;  Luke  i.  27,  32,  69). 

The  Study  of  the  Law. 

Jesus  grew  in  wisdom  as  He  grew  in  stature  (Luke 
ii.  40,  52).  He  had  a  child's  knowledge  of  the 
law  when  He  was  a  child,  and  that  was  followed 
by  a  youth's  knowledge,  and  that  in  turn  by  the 
mature  knowledge  of  a  man.  In  a  home  like  that 
of  Joseph  and  Mary  a  child  began  to  learn  the  law 
as  soon  as  it  began  to  speak.  This  was  in  accord  with 
the  word  of  Scripture  (Deut.  vi.  6,  7),  which  commands 
parents  to  teach  the  law  diligently  to  their  children. 
"Whomsoever  of  us,"  says  Josephus,  "one  asks  regard- 
ing the  laws,  he  would  more  easily  say  them  all  than 
his  own  name.  Since  from  our  earliest  consciousness 
we  learn  them,  we  have  them  in  our  souls  as  though 
engraven."  ^  Paul  says  that  Timothy  knew  the  sacred 
writings  from  his  infancy  (2  Tim.  iii.  15).  So  it  may 
well  have  been  with  the  children  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
It  is  probable  that  the  parents  taught  Jesus  verses  out 
of  the  law  long  before  He  had  learned  to  read.  It  is 
probable  that  He  learned  to  read  at  home,  but  uncertain 

1  Apion,  ii.  18. 


38  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

whether  He  learned  to  read  the  law  in  Hebrew  or  in 
Aramaic.  If  He  knew  Hebrew,  which  seems  probable 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  cherished  as  the  sacred 
tongue  and  studied  by  all  the  rabbis,  then  He  doubtless 
learned  it  as  a  child  at  home  and  as  an  attendant  on  the 
services  of  the  synagogue.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
He  ever  attended  a  school ;  indeed,  it  is  quite  uncertain 
whether  there  were  village  schools  in  the  time  of  Jesus. 
Keim  thinks  the  first  were  established  about  64  a.d.,^ 
while  Schiirer^  is  of  the  opinion  that  they  may  have  ex- 
isted in  the  time  of  Christ.  But  there  was  a  synagogue 
in  Nazareth  which  Jesus  doubtless  attended,  and  where 
through  many  years  He  heard  the  law  read  (Mark  vi. 
2),  first  in  Hebrew,  then  in  Aramaic,^  and  where  He 
heard  the  sacred  language  also  in  certain  parts  of  the 
liturgical  service.  When  Jesus  at  the  age  of  twelve 
was  in  the  temple.  He  entered  into  conversation 
with  the  scribes,  and  they  were  amazed  at  His  under- 
standing and  His  answers.  From  this  incident  it  seems 
allowable  to  infer  that  the  scribes  in  Nazareth  were 
interested  in  Jesus,  and  that  He  had  discussed  the  law 
with  them.  It  is  not  improbable  that  some  Nazarene 
scribe  helped  Him  to  learn  Hebrew.  How  much  help 
He  may  have  received  from  the  synagogue  in  under- 
standing the  Old  Testament,  we  cannot  say.  Certain  it 
is  that  His  accurate  and  comprehensive  knowledge  of 
the  law  impUes  that  He  studied  it  long  and  patiently  for 

"^  Jesus  of  Nazara,  II.  151.  ^  Schiirer,  11.  20. 

2  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  II.  424. 


THE   EDUCATION  OF  JESUS  39 

Himself.  It  is  possible  that  there  was  a  copy  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  His  home,  or  at  least  of  the  chief 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  spiritual  understand- 
ing of  the  law  was  doubtless  due  in  the  main  to  His 
own  purity  and  spirituality,  yet  as  a  child  He  may  have 
been  greatly  helped  by  His  parents  to  a  true  appre- 
hension of  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  They  had  a  vital 
piety,  and  that  piety  must  have  been  sustained  by  their 
feeding  on  the  word  of  God.  So  their  teaching  would 
naturally  lead  their  children  into  the  inner  sense  of 
Scripture.  As  Jesus  probably  had  a  certain  knowledge 
of  Hebrew,  so  also  of  Greek.  There  were  many  Greek- 
speaking  people  throughout  Galilee,  as  through  all 
Syria ;  and  further,  Jesus  seems  to  have  spoken  with 
certain  Gentiles,  without  an  interpreter,  as  with  Pilate, 
with  the  centurion  of  Capernaum,  and  with  the  Canaan 
itishwoman,  and  in  such  cases  Greek  was  doubtless  the 
vehicle  of  communication.  Yet  this  cannot  be  posi^ 
tively  affirmed. 

Though  Jesus  in  His  childhood  and  youth  may  have 
been  helped  by  the  scribes  in  Nazareth,  it  is  certain  that 
He  did  not  take  up  a  formal  course  of  study  with  them,  or 
attend  a  rabbinical  school  elsewhere.  His  townspeople 
knew  Him  only  as  a  carpenter,  and  were  surprised  that 
He  should  come  forward  in  the  synagogue  as  a  teacher 
(Mark  vi.  2,  3).  In  Jerusalem  it  seems  to  have  been 
well  known  that  Jesus  had  not  learned  the  law  from 
the  recognized  teachers  (John  vii.  15).  He  was  called 
rabbi,  but  this  does  not   imply  that  He   had  received 


40  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

rabbinical  ordination.  It  was  simply  an  expression  of 
His  disciples'  reverence  for  Him  as  their  teacher,  called 
forth  by  His  surpassing  knowledge  of  the  law. 

The  Study  of  Nature. 

The  development  of  Jesus  was  influenced  by  the 
world  around  Him  as  well  as  by  the  record  of  God's 
revelation  contained  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  plain 
from  the  Gospels  that  Jesus  was  a  close  observer  of 
nature,  and  had  pondered  much  on  the  meaning  of 
\  natural  phenomena.  This  is  shown  by  the  aptness 
of  His  many  illustrations  drawn  from  nature,  and  also 
by  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  His  parables  are 
based  on  natural  phenomena.  He  saw  an  analogy 
between  the  visible  world  and  the  invisible,  and  taught 
truths  of  His  kingdom  from  what  He  observed  in  the 
field  and  by  the  wayside.  To  Him,  nature  was  full 
of  spiritual  meaning.  It  spoke  to  Him  of  the  goodness 
of  God  and  the  minuteness  of  His  tender  care.  He 
admired  the  beauty  of  the  lilies,  but  the  thought  that 
especially  impressed  Him  was  that  God  had  clothed 
them,  God  had  given  them  this  raiment  which  sur- 
passed in  glory  the  raiment  of  Solomon  (Matt.  vi.  28- 
30).  He  watched  the  birds  of  the  air,  and  thought 
how  the  heavenly  Father  fed  them,  and  how  not  one 
of  the  least  of  them  could  fall  to  the  ground  without 
His  notice  (Matt.  vi.  26 ;  x.  29).  When  the  sun  arose 
and  shined  on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and  when  the 
rain  came  down  upon  the  just  and  the  unjust,  it  was 


THE  EDUCATION   OF  JESUS  41 

to  Him  a  parable  of  the  divine  love  (Matt.  v.  44,  45). 
The  tares  in  the  wheat  were  like  the  children  of  the 
evil  one,  and  the  birds  catching  away  the  seed  before 
it  sprouted  were  like  Satan  who  takes  away  the  good 
word  from  the  heart  (Matt.  xiii.  19,  38).  The  book  of 
nature  had  its  mystery  for  Jesus  as  it  has  for  every 
thoughtful  observer.  He  recognized  that  a  man  cannot 
tell  whence  the  wind  comes  and  whither  it  goes  (John 
iii.  8);  and  cannot  tell  how  the  seed  germinates,  and 
grows  until  the  full  corn  appears  in  the  ear  (Mark 
iv.  27). 

The  fact  that  Jesus,  in  His  teaching,  drew  so  con- 
stantly and  widely  from  the  treasury  of  nature,  and 
always  with  wondrous  propriety,  shows  that  He  had 
looked  upon  the  earth  and  the  heaven  with  an  observ- 
ant, sympathetic  eye.  His  reading  of  nature,  like  His 
reading  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  altogether  different 
from  that  of  the  scribes  of  His  day.  It  was  deeply 
spiritual,  and  full  of  hope  because  full  of  the  thought 
of  the  heavenly  Father. 

The  Study  of  Man. 

But  Jesus,  while  studying  in  the  book  of  nature  and 
in  the  Old  Testament,  surely  did  not  keep  aloof  from 
men  or  ignore  any  human  interest.  What  characterized 
His  ministry  we  may  suppose  characterized  also  His 
earlier  years  in  the  quiet  of  Nazareth,  namely,  a  genuine 
sympathy  with  men.  He  was  no  Essene,  withdrawing 
from  His  fellow-men  to  live  a  narrow  self-centred  life. 


42  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

He  may  have  loved  the  soHtude  of  the  mountain  top, 
but  only  that  He  might  there  commune  with  God,  and 
receive  wisdom  and  grace  for  the  service  of  men.  With 
the  common  life  of  the  peasant  and  artisan  He  had 
such  familiarity  as  can  have  been  gained  only  by  close 
observation.  He  was  acquainted  with  the  work  of  the 
tailor  (Mark  ii.  21)  and  the  vine  dresser  (Mark  ii.  22; 
Matt.  XX.  1-16;  John  xv.  i-io),  the  gardener  and  the 
carpenter  (Matt.  vii.  16-21  ;  24-26;  Luke  viii.  6-9),  the 
housewife  and  the  pearl-merchant  (Matt.  xiii.  33,  44), 
the  shepherd  and  the  fisherman  (Matt.  vii.  15  ;  Luke  xv- 
3-7;  Matt.  XXV.  31-46;  John  x.  1-16;  Matt.  xiii.  47- 
50;  Luke  V.  i-ii).  He  was  acquainted  also  with  cur- 
rent history,  at  least  as  far  as  could  be  expected  of  one 
who  lived  in  a  small  provincial  town.  He  knew  of  the 
embassy  that  had  been  sent  after  Archelaus  (Luke  xix. 
12),  and  the  mode  of  capital  punishment  followed  by 
the  Romans  in  dealing  with  the  Galilean  Zealots  (Mark 
ix.  42) ;  He  knew  of  the  high-handed  acts  of  Pilate 
(Luke  xiii.  i),  and  the  tragedy  in  Siloam  (Luke  xiii.  4); 
He  had  thought  of  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  Rome, 
and  had  reached  conclusions  widely  different  from  those 
of  the  Pharisees  (Mark  xii.  16-17;  Luke  xix.  i-io); 
He  knew  that  those  who  had  been  condemned  to  be 
crucified  bore  their  crosses  to  the  place  of  execution 
(Mark  viii.  34),  and  He  knew  the  character  and  life  of 
the  Pharisees  through  and  through  (Matt,  xxiii.,  etc.). 

In  His  contact  with  men  He  discovered  good  where 
others   saw  only  evil,  as  in  publicans,  profligates,  and 


THE   EDUCATION   OF  JESUS  43 

the  robber  on  the  cross.  Since  it  was  true  in  His 
ministry,  that  He  came  close  to  the  lowest  and  the 
worst,  we  may  think  that  in  His  earlier  life  also  He 
had  felt  a  genuine  sympathy  with  these  classes  and 
had  seen  that  there  was  hope  for  them.  He  doubtless 
saw  the  wretchedness  of  their  estate  as  no  one  else, 
but  He  did  not  despair.  While  His  own  inner  purity 
made  Him  uniquely  appreciative  of  the  sinfulness  of 
men,  His  sense  of  the  fatherliness  of  God  and  of  God's 
power  made  Him  uniquely  hopeful.  What  He  said  on 
a  certain  occasion  in  defence  of  His  Sabbath  miracle, 
we  may  suppose  that  He  had  long  seen  and  felt, 
namely,  that  the  Father  is  constantly  at  work  among 
men  in  their  behalf. 

Jesus  then,  we  remark  in  conclusion,  when  He  went 
forth  from  Nazareth  to  His  brief  public  ministry,  knew' 
the  nature  and  needs  of  man  with  whom  He  was  to 
deal.  He  was  also  enriched  by  the  possession  of  the 
deepest  truths  of  the  word  of  God,  and  by  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  world  of  nature,  not  such  as  is 
had  by  a  man  of  science,  but  rather  that  of  a  poet 
and  prophet.  It  was  the  religious  meaning  and  value 
of  history  and  life  which  He,  as  no  other,  saw  and 
interpreted. 

It  is  needful  to  say  but  few  words  in  regard  to  the 
personal  appearance  of  Jesus.  All  representations  are 
purely  imaginary,  and  express  the  ideas,  artistic  or  reli- 
gious, of  the  various  ages  in  which  they  have  been  pro- 
duced.     At    one    time,    under    the    influence    of    the 


44  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

fifty-third  of  Isaiah,  He  has  been  thought  of  as  without 
form  or  comeliness,  having  no  beauty  that  we  should 
desire  Him ;  and  again,  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  have 
been  applied  to  Him  and  understood  literally,  "  Thou  art 
fairer  than  the  children  of  men."  We  have  no  definite 
knowledge,  and  inferences  which  seem  valid  to  one, 
another  may  question.  The  Jews  once  said  to  Jesus, 
*'Thou  art  not  yet  Jifty  years  old"  (John  viii.  57);  and 
it  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  this  that  He  looked 
somewhat  older  than  He  really  was.  It  is  natural,  in 
view  both  of  His  holiness  and  of  the  unparalleled  phys- 
ical strain  that  He  endured,  to  think  that  He  was  free 
from  disease,  full  of  physical  vigor,  and  that  all  the 
faculties  of  body  as  of  mind  were  unimpaired.  It  is 
natural  also  to  think  that  the  majesty  and  greatness  and 
gentleness  of  His  spirit  were  reflected  on  His  features 
and  in  His  bearing.  When  He  passed  through  the 
midst  of  His  enraged  townspeople,  the  force  that  awed 
them  and  made  them  for  the  moment  powerless  against 
Him  may  have  been  naught  but  the  outflashing  of  His 
mighty  will  (Luke  iv.  30).  We  can  hardly  beheve  other- 
wise than  that  His  features  were  capable  of  expressing 
in  a  remarkable  degree  the  tenderness  of  His  love,  and 
that  thus  there  was  manifested  a  power  which  drew 
outcasts  to  His  feet  and  broke  the  heart  of  Peter  in 
the  midst  of  his  denials. 


CHAPTER   IV 
The  Baptism  of  Jesus 

John  and  His  Work. 

The  event  which  terminated  the  private  life  of  Jesus 
and  ushered  Him  into  His  Messianic  work  was  His 
baptism  in  the  Jordan  by  John.  Of  this  man  and  his 
work  we  have  not  a  few  definite  and  significant  data. 
He  was  born  a  few  months  before  Jesus  (Luke  i.  26), 
to  parents  who  represented  the  purest  religious  life  of 
the  time  (Luke  i.  6,  67-79),  one  of  whom  was  a  relative 
of  Mary  (Luke  i.  36).  His  parents,  like  Simeon,  believed 
that  the  Messiah  was  soon  to  appear,  and  they  also 
believed  that  their  son  was  to  prepare  the  Messiah's 
way  (Luke  i.  17,  ^6).  John  grew  up  in  the  hill  country 
of  Judea  as  an  ascetic  (Luke  i.  39,  80).  He  wore  a 
mantle  of  hair,  bound  about  him  with  a  leather  girdle, 
and  lived  on  the  plainest  fare  (Mark  i.  6;  Matt.  xi.  18). 
His  soul  was  filled  with  the  thought  that  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  was  at  hand,  and  that  the  world  was  not 
ready  for  it.  Josephus^  mentions  John  as  a  good  man 
and  as  a  preacher  of  great  power,  but  says  nothing  of 
his  Messianic  hope,  which  is  necessary  to  the  explana- 

1  Antiquities ,  xviii.  5.  2. 
45 


46  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

tion  of  his  immediate  and  mighty  influence.  Simply  as 
a  preacher  of  morals  he  could  not  have  moved  Jerusa- 
lem and  Judea  as  he  did,  for  the  Pharisees,  the  dominant 
party  in  the  land,  would  have  ignored  such  a  preacher. 
The  note  that  aroused  the  Jews  of  all  classes  was  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  nearness  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
for  the  centre  of  religious  hope,  and  also  of  political 
aspiration,  was  the  long-expected  Messiah.^  With  this 
announcement  John  associated  a  preaching  of  repent- 
ance (Mark  i.  4),  with  very  specific  application  to  differ- 
ent classes  among  his  hearers  (Luke  iii.  10-14).  The 
vigor  of  his  preaching  of  righteousness,  and  its  effect 
as  well,  owed  much  to  the  conviction  that  the  Messiah, 
at  His  coming,  would  sift  Israel  (Matt.  iii.  12;  Luke 
iii.  9). 

Of  the  depth  and  extent  of  John's  influence  various 
facts  bear  witness.  Thus  we  are  told  that  he  made 
such  an  impression  that  men  asked  whether  he  might 
not  be  the  Messiah  (Luke  iii.  15),  and  a  formal  embassy 
was  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  find  out,  if  possible,  who  he 
was  (John  i.  19-27).  His  power  was  so  great  that 
Herod  became  jealous  and  imprisoned  him,  if  we  follow 
the  account  of  Josephus,  which  is  not  at  variance  with 
the  Gospels.  Even  after  he  was  dead  his  memory  had 
such  a  hold  on  the  people  that  they  thought  Jesus  was 
only  a  reincarnation  of  the  spirit  of  John  (Matt.  xvi.  14). 

1  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  II.  496-556;  Weber,  Jil- 
dische  Theologie,  pp.  348-351. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  47 

Again,  as  late  as  the  close  of  Christ's  ministry,  John 
was  so  highly  reverenced  in  Jerusalem  that  the  priests 
and  scribes  dared  not  speak  disparagingly  of  him  in 
public  (Mark  xi.  27-33).  Finally,  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury after  John's  death  we  find  his  disciples  in  distant 
Asia  Minor  (Acts  xviii.  25  ;  xix.  3).  These  facts  are 
evidence  that  his  preaching  and  his  personality  made 
a  deep  impression. 

The  relation  of  John  to  Jesus  is  in  the  main  clear 
and  what  one  might  have  expected.  He  seems  to  have 
had  no  personal  acquaintance  with  Jesus  before  His 
baptism  (John  i.  26,  33),  but  to  have  been  deeply  im- 
pressed by  Him  at  their  first  meeting  (Matt.  iii.  14). 
And  even  in  the  Synoptists  the  hour  of  Jesus'  baptism 
seems  not  to  have  passed  without  an  assurance  coming 
into  the  soul  of  John  that  He  was  the  Messiah  (Matt, 
iii.  17).  It  is  plain,  however,  that  this  faith  was  not 
maintained.  When  in  prison,  and  shortly  before  his 
death,  he  sought  from  Jesus  an  open  declaration  of  His 
Messiahship  (Matt.  xi.  2-6),  he  was  certainly  in  doubt, 
notwithstanding  all  that  he  had  seen  and  heard.  The 
testimony  of  Jesus  concerning  John  shows  that  he  had 
not  accepted,  or,  at  least,  did  not  then  accept,  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah.  Jesus  said  that  he  was  a  great  prophet, 
none  greater  than  he,  but  still  he  was  less  than  the 
least  in  the  Kingdom  of  Jesus  (Matt.  xi.  1 1 ).  This  must 
mean  that,  unlike  the  least  in  the  Kingdom,  he  did  not 
fully  accept  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  As  a  prophet  of 
righteousness,  John  was  an  Elijah,  and  Jesus  could  say 


48  THE   STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

that  the  prophecy  of  EHjah's  return  was  fulfilled  in  him 
(Matt.  xi.  14);  but  as  herald  of  the  Messiah,  he  was  not 
prepared  for  the  conceptions  of  Jesus  regarding  Mes- 
siahship.  In  this  respect  he  was  practically  on  a  level 
with  his  generation.  At  first  he  could  welcome  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah,  and  even  suggest  to  his  own  disciples 
that  they  should  follow  Jesus  (John  i.  29,  36,  37),  be- 
cause he  did  not  then  foresee  how  widely  the  Messianic 
work  of  Jesus  was  to  differ  from  his  own  ideal.  As  the 
months  passed,  however,  and  Jesus  did  not  do  the  things 
that  were  expected  of  the  Messiah,  doubt  succeeded  the 
early  confidence,  though  perhaps  with  intervals  of  hope 
(John  iii.  27-30).  But  ever  after  the  early  days  of  the 
public  life  of  Jesus  the  disciples  of  John  seem  to  have 
remained  faithful  to  him.  They  did  not  leave  him  and 
follow  Jesus,  as  would  probably  have  been  the  case  had 
John  been  confident  that  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Messiah. 
Such  was  the  man  whose  announcement  of  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven  drew  Jesus  from  the  private  life  of 
Nazareth,  and  led  to  His  being  made  manifest  to  Israel. 

Data  of  Jesus'  Baptism. 

The  Synoptists  agree  in  saying  that  Jesus  was  bap- 
tized by  John  in  the  Jordan,  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
descended  upon  Him,  and  that  a  voice  came  out  of 
heaven  (Mark  i.  9-1 1 ;  Matt.  iii.  13-17;  Luke  iii.  21-22). 
Their  narrative  implies  that  John's  work  had  continued 
some  time  before  Jesus  came  to  be  baptized.  They 
have  no  suggestion  as  to  the  place  of  the  baptism,  but 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  49 

from  John  we  may  infer  with  some  probabiUty  that  it 
was  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan  (John  i.  28).  Mat- 
thew alone  records  any  conversation  between  Jesus  and 
the  Baptist.  According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  the  heavenly 
voice  spoke  to  Jesus ;  according  to  Matthew  it  spoke  of 
Him. 

John  does  not  record  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  but  only 
speaks  of  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  Him  (John 
i.  32-33).  It  is  said  that  the  Baptist  beheld  the  Spirit 
descending,  and  that  this  descent  was  a  sign  to  him 
that  the  one  on  whom  the  Spirit  descended  was  the 
Messiah. 

Jesus  Himself  recognized  the  baptism  of  John  as  being 
from  heaven,  that  is,  as  divinely  appointed  (Mark  xi.  30) ; 
and  hence  submission  to  this  baptism  was  a  requirement 
of  righteousness  (Matt.  iii.  15).  During  the  early  part 
of  His  ministry  Jesus  practised  the  same  baptism  (John 
iii.  22-26 ;  iv.  2),  that  is,  he  allowed  His  disciples  to 
perform  the  rite. 

Significance  of  the  Baptism. 

If  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  the  Jordan  had  any  refer- 
ence to  sin,  then  it  must  have  been  to  the  sin  of  others, 
for  He  had  no  sin  of  His  own  to  confess.  So  some  have 
held  that  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  representative. 
But  this  view  is  improbable  for  the  reason  that  the  peo- 
ple themselves  were  coming  with  one  accord  to  John's 
baptism,  and  so  did  not  need  a  representative.  And 
further,   it  is   improbable   because   Jesus   had  not  yet 


50  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

received  the  divine  call  to  the  Messianic  work,  and  so 
could  not  act  representatively  for  men. 
I  If,  then,  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  not  symbolic  of  a 
I  putting  away  of  sin,  either  His  own  or  that  of  others,  it 
may  best  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  consecration.  This 
was  one  side  of  the  meaning  of  baptism  in  the  case  of 
all  whom  John  baptized.  There  was  not  only  a  turning 
away  from  sin,  but  there  was  also  an  expectation  of  the 
I  approaching  Kingdom  and  an  implicit  devotement  of 
one's  self  to  its  service.  In  the  case  of  Jesus  consecra- 
tion did  not  have  reference  to  holiness,  for  His  life  had 
always  been  holy,  but  it  was  a  public  consecration  to  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  which  the  Baptist  was  announcing  as 
near  at  hand.  It  was  a  part  of  the  fulfilment  of  right- 
eousness (Matt.  iii.  15).  For  all  Israel  were  called  upon 
to  prepare  for  the  coming  Kingdom  of  God,  the  best  as 
well  as  the  worst;  and  Jesus,  as  an  Israelite,  though 
without  sin,  could  not  refrain  from  a  public  acknowl- 
edgment of  His  desire  for  that  Kingdom,  or  from  con- 
secration to  it.  The  meaning  of  the  act  was  unique  in 
His  case  only  in  so  far  as  He  was  unique. 

The  Dove  and  the    Voice. 

The  event  which  followed  the  baptism  in  the  Jordan 
occurred,  Luke  tells  us,  while  Jesus  was  praying  (Luke 
iii.  21).  The  heavens  were  opened,  the  Spirit  came 
upon  Jesus,  and  a  voice  was  heard — the  voice  of  God. 
This  language  is  materialistic,  but  there  are  very  grave 
objections  to  the  view   that   the   dove  was   visible  to 


THE  BAPTISM   OF  JESUS  5 1 

eyes  of  flesh  and  the  voice  audible  to  ears  of  flesh, 
(i)  The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  abiding  perma- 
nently upon  Jesus,  which  is  inconceivable  if  the  Spirit 
was  in  a  visible  form,  unless,  indeed,  we  suppose  that, 
having  descended  in  a  visible  form,  the  Spirit  then 
became  invisible  (John  i.  32,  33).  But  of  this  the  text 
has  no  hint.  (2)  If  the  voice  be  thought  of  as  physical, 
there  is  a  plain  conflict  between  Matthew  and  Mark. 
One  version  would  have  to  be  omitted,  for  we  could  not 
suppose  that  the  voice  uttered  both  sayings,  speaking 
now  in  the  second  person  and  then  in  the  third. 
And  which  would  be  rejected  as  unhisforical }  (3)  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  actually 
assume  an  animal  form,  or  that  Jewish-Christian  writ- 
ers with  their  conception  of  the  incomparable  exalta- 
tion of  Jehovah  would  have  thought  of  His  Spirit  as 
assuming  such  a  form.^  (4)  In  the  case  of  John,  and 
certainly  in  that  of  Jesus,  we  cannot  assume  that  there 
was  a  need  of  visible  and  audible  phenomena  in  order 
to  the  reception  of  communications  from  God. 

In  view  of  these  objections,  and  in  keeping  with  the 
spiritual  and  inward  character  of  all  New  Testament 
revelation,  the  phenomena  which  accompanied  the  bap- 
tism of  Jesus  must  be  understood  as  spiritual  in  char- 
acter.    The  underlying  reality  may  be  thought  of  in 

1  Luke  is  the  only  one, of  the  Synoptists  who  speaks  of  a  bodily  form, 
but  of  course  even  this  language  does  not  require  us  to  think  that  he  had 
a  physical  phenomenon  in  mind.  The  description  may  have  been  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  inner  organ  of  vision. 


52  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

this  way.  In  the  hour  of  baptism,  the  conviction  was 
divinely  borne  in  upon  the  soul  of  John  that  the  man 
before  him  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  communicated  to  Him  without  measure.  This 
conviction  may  have  come  through  a  vision,  and  in 
the  vision  John  may  have  seen  the  heavens  opened, 
and  may  have  seen  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  may  have 
heard  a  heavenly  voice,  just  as  Peter  in  a  vision  saw  a 
sheet  full  of  all  sorts  of  living  creatures  let  down  out  of 
heaven  (Acts  x.  ii,  12),  and  as  John  in  a  vision  saw 
Jesus  under  the  form  of  a  lamb  (Rev.  v.  6).  The  Bap- 
tist had  previously  received  the  assurance  that  the  Mes- 
siah would  be  pointed  out  to  him  by  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit  (John  i.  33). 

Jesus  also  as  well  as  John  saw  and  heard  spiritually, 
not  physically.  But  since  He  was  in  perfect  fellowship 
with  God,  and  since  nothing  had  ever  dulled  His  inner 
ear  to  the  divine  voice,  we  may  best  think  that  the 
truth  which  was  made  known  to  Him  in  the  hour  of 
His  baptism  was  made  known  by  an  immediate  reve- 
lation to  His  spirit.  This  is  certainly  what  we  should 
infer  from  the  record  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  in 
which  no  visions  are  said  to  have  been  granted  to  Him, 
but  where  there  are  claims  of  a  unique,  direct  inter- 
course with  God  (e.g.  John  v.  19,  30).  It  is  natural 
that  what  was  an  inner  and  spiritual  event  in  the 
experience  of  Jesus  should  have  been  set  forth  by 
Him,  or  by  the  Baptist,  in  the  concrete  symbolism  of 
our  narrative. 


THE  BAPTISM   OF  JESUS  53 

Significance  of  the  Spiritual  PJieitomenon. 

But  what  now  is  the  meaning  of  this  experience  by 
the  Jordan  ?  Plainly  it  had  a  meaning  which  was  of 
transcendent  importance  to  Jesus,  for  from  this  hour 
His  Messianic  work  began.  He  did  not  go  back  to  the 
quiet  life  of  Nazareth,  but  came  forth  in  Israel  to  found 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

It  is  said  that  the  Spirit  came  down  upon  Him.  But 
Jesus  had  possessed  the  Spirit  all  His  life.  Early  tradi- 
tion represented  Him  as  a  child  of  the  Spirit  (Luke  i. 
35).  He  had  had  undisturbed  communion  with  God, 
and  had  known  Him  as  His  Father  (Luke  ii.  49).  If 
then  He  was  already  obedient  to  the  Spirit,  or  filled 
with  the  Spirit,  what  is  meant  by  the  statement  that 
He  received  the  Spirit  by  the  Jordan.?  Its  meaning 
is  suggested,  in  the  first  place,  by  the  words  which 
accompanied  the  descent  of  the  Spirit:  **Thou  art 
my  beloved  Son;  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased."  These 
words  come  from  God,  and  therefore  Jesus  is  here 
virtually  called  Son  of  God.  This  title,  based  on  the 
second  Psalm,  was  a  synonym  of  Messiah}  It  was  so 
understood  by  Jesus  and  His  contemporaries.  There- 
fore it  is  natural  to  hold  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  had 
reference  to  the  Messiah's  work.  Jesus  is  no  sooner 
conscious  of  being  invested  with  the  office  of  Messiah 
than  He  is  conscious  of  being  equipped  for  that  office 
by  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  this  view 
of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  and  of  the  significance  of  the 

1  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus ^  pp.  179-18$, 


54  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

heavenly  voice  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  was 
at  once  impelled  by  the  Spirit  to  go  into  the  wilderness, 
to  ponder  the  career  now  opened  before  Him  (Mark  i. 
12),  and  by  the  fact  that  from  this  hour  forward  all 
His  movements  were  determined  by  the  Messianic  pur- 
pose. This  gift  of  the  Spirit  therefore  was  the  neces- 
sary accompaniment  of  the  revelation  of  Messiahship. 
It  was  the  unique  equipment  for  the  unique  service. 
Henceforth  when  the  work  of  Jesus  called  for  special 
manifestations  of  wisdom  or  of  power,  He  was  con- 
scious that  through  His  dependence  upon  the  Spirit  of 
God  even  these  manifestations  would  be  granted  as 
need  should  arise. 

There  is  a  pretty  general  agreement  of  recent  schol- 
ars that  the  Messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus  arose  in 
the  hour  of  His  baptism.  The  only  word  which  seems 
to  lend  support  to  the  view  that  Jesus  came  to  the  Jor- 
dan with  a  clear  consciousness  of  Messiahship  is  that 
found  in  Matthew,  "Suffer  it  to  be  so  now''  (iii.  15). 
Here  it  is  implied,  according  to  some  scholars,^  that 
Jesus,  in  subordinating  Himself  to  John,  knew  that  in 
the  future  He  would  not  be  in  such  a  relation  to  him ; 
in  other  words,  knew  that  He  was  the  Messiah.  But 
this  is  a  large  inference  to  draw  from  this  single  par- 
ticle, and  by  no  means  a  necessary  one.  It  is  wrongly 
assumed  that  one  who  receives  baptism  at  the  hands  of 
another  thereby  confesses  his  own  inferiority.  This  is 
true  in  no  sense.     Jesus   regarded   John's  baptism  as 

1  E.g.,  Weiss,  Das  Leben  fesu,  I.  309. 


THE   BAPTISM   OF  JESUS  55 

from  heaveft,  divinely  appointed,  and  He  must  have 
regarded  John  simply  as  the  providential  instrument 
which  God  used  in  the  accomplishment  of  His  purpose. 
The  words  of  Jesus  therefore  imply  no  comparison  be- 
tween Himself  and  John,  either  moral  or  official.  The 
inference  which  is  drawn  from  Matthew's  expression, 
"  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,"  cannot  be  allowed  to  stand  in 
view  of  the  varied  evidence  against  the  possession  of 
Messianic  consciousness  by  Jesus  prior  to  His  baptism. 
This  evidence  is  as  follows:  (i)  If  Jesus  had  been 
conscious  of  His  Messianic  character  when  He  came  to 
His  baptism,  there  was  no  need  of  the  divine  assurance 
of  this  fact  which  was  given  in  the  words,  "  Thou  art 
my  beloved  Son;  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased."  (2)  If 
Jesus  had  been  conscious  of  His  Messiahship  before 
His  baptism,  why  should  the  baptism  introduce  Him  to 
temptation  regarding  His  Messiahship .?  If  His  Mes- 
sianic consciousness  antedated  the  baptism,  then  there 
is  no  reason  why  the  temptation  followed  immedi- 
ately upon  the  baptism.  Had  He  known  Himself 
as  the  Messiah  long  before  this  hour  by  the  Jordan, 
then  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  He  must  have  been 
tempted  as  Messiah  long  before.  (3)  In  addition  to 
all  this,  there  is  in  the  Gospels  no  indication  what- 
ever that  Jesus  had  Messianic  consciousness  prior  to 
His  baptism,  excepting  the  doubtful  word  of  Matthew 
iii.  15,  which  is  surely  too  slight  to  sustain  the  inference 
drawn  from  it. 

The  word  of  the  boy  Jesus  in  the  temple  (Luke  ii. 


56  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF   JESUS 

49)  witnesses  to  a  consciousness  of  moral  harmony 
with  God,  but  of  nothing  beyond  this.  It  is  quite  natu- 
ral on  the  lips  of  one  whom  no  sin  had  alienated  from 
God.  To  Jesus,  being  such  an  one,  the  Old  Testament 
itself  gave  ample  justification  when  He  called  God  His 
Father. 

In  view  of  these  things  we  hold  therefore  that,  though 
Jesus'  consciousness  of  the  presence  of  the  Father  with 
Him  had  been  unique  even  before  His  baptism  by  John, 
He  had  not  then  possessed  the  consciousness  of  being 
the  Messianic  Son  of  God.  This  came  in  the  hour  of 
baptismal  consecration  when,  praying  by  the  Jordan, 
a  heavenly  voice  spoke  to  His  spirit,  saying,  "  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son ;  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased." 

It  is  manifest  that  this  revelation,  vital  though  it  was, 
stood  in  fundamental  harmony  with  the  past  life  of  Jesus. 
Through  all  the  years  of  His  private  life  He  had  been 
moving  toward  this  very  experience ;  and  while  it  in- 
volved a  divine  element,  it  was  also  the  natural,  and  we 
may  perhaps  say  the  inevitable,  culmination  of  His  hid- 
den development.  He  had  lived  the  life  of  a  perfect 
child  of  God,  and  therefore  was  prepared  for  the  Messi- 
anic revelation  and  the  anointing  of  the  Spirit  which 
He  received  in  the  hour  of  His  baptism,  through  which 
the  Father  called  and  consecrated  Him  unto  the  office 
of  Redeemer  of  the  world. 


CHAPTER   V 

The  Temptation  of  Jesus 

TJie  Data. 

John  says  nothing  of  the  temptation,  Mark  has  only 
a  brief  statement  in  two  verses  (i.  12,  13);  but  Matthew 
and  Luke  have  full  accounts  (Matt.  iv.  i-ii  ;  Luke  iv. 
1-13).  The  chief  differences  between  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  (i)  that  Matthew  puts  the  temptation  at  the 
close  of  the  forty  days,  while  Luke  represents  the  C7itire 
period  of  forty  days  as  one  of  temptation  (so  also  Mark). 
And  yet  Luke  puts  the  partietUar  temptation  which  is 
described  in  full,  at  the  close  of  the  forty  days,  and  thus 
agrees  with  Matthew  in  this  point  while  differing  from 
him  in  another.  However,  Matthew's  statement  does 
not  exclude  that  of  Luke  and  Mark,  namely,  that  the 
entire  period  spent  in  the  wilderness  was  one  of  tempta- 
tion, which  is  intrinsically  probable.  Since  Matthew 
puts  the  temptation  at  the  end  of  the  forty  days,  he 
puts  there  also  the  ministry  of  angels,  which  in  Mark 
continues  through  the  whole  period,  and  which  is  omitted 
by  Luke.  (2)  Luke  does  not  agree  with  Matthew  in  the 
order  of  the  second  and  third  temptations.  He  puts 
the  temple  scene  last,  while  Matthew  puts  the  moun- 
tain scene  last.     This  is  of  course  a  difference  in  form 

57 


58  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

merely,  and  does  not  affect  the  substance  of  the  narra- 
tive. (3)  Luke  represents  Jesus  as  being  led  about  by 
the  Spirit  during  the  forty  days,  that  is,  He  did  not 
pass  this  time  in  one  place  but  in  various  places.  This 
statement  that  Jesus  moved  about  in  the  wilderness  from 
one  spot  to  another  suggests  an  inward  agitation  which 
was  reflected  in  a  certain  outward  restlessness.  This 
may  be  regarded  as  inherently  probable. 

According  to  Mark,  Jesus  went  into  the  wilderness 
immediately  after  His  baptism  (i.  12).  There  is  no  trace 
of  any  conference  with  John,  though,  according  to  the 
fourth  Gospel,  when  Jesus  returned  to  the  Jordan  from 
the  wilderness  He  remained  at  least  two  days  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Baptist  (John  i.  29-35).  Mark's  repre- 
sentation that,  after  the  baptism,  Jesus  went  into  the 
wilderness  at  once,  accords  fully  with  the  fact  of  the 
Messianic  revelation  which  accompanied  that  baptism. 
If  a  Paul,  when  brought  suddenly  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ,  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood  but  straight- 
way sought  solitude  for  meditation  (Gal.  i.  15,  16),  much 
more  may  Jesus  in  the  initial  hour  of  His  Messianic 
experience  have  felt  Himself  driven  from  the  presence 
of  men  to  the  quiet  of  the  wilderness.  The  statement 
in  Matthew  iv.  i,  that  Jesus  went  into  the  wilderness 
to  be  tempted  of  the  devil  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
evangelist's  inference  from  what  actually  happened  in 
the  wilderness.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  Jesus 
knew  beforehand  what  was  to  befall  Him  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  so  purposely  walked  into  temptation  contrary 


THE  TEMPTATION   OF  JESUS  59 

to  His  own  instruction  to  His  disciples  (Matt.  vi.  13). 
The  power  of  the  temptation  would  have  been  largely 
taken  away  had  Jesus  known  that  it  was  coming  and 
just  what  it  was.  It  would  not  then  have  been  true 
that  He  was  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are  (Heb. 
iv.  15).  The  aim  of  His  retirement  into  the  wilderness 
was  to  contemplate  His  Messianic  work,  and  as  He 
contemplated  that  He  was  tempted. 

The  time  spent  in  the  wilderness  is  given  by  the 
Synoptists  as  forty  days,  but  it  is  uncertain  whether  this 
is  to  be  understood  literally  or  figuratively.  A  figura- 
tive use  of  the  number  is  favored  by  the  general  para- 
bolic character  of  the  narrative,  which  will  be  considered 
later.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  inherently  probable 
that  Jesus,  at  this  great  crisis  of  His  Hfe,  spent  a  long 
time  in  solitary  thought.  There  is  nothing  improbable 
in  the  statement  of  the  Synoptists  that  He  was  in  the 
wilderness  forty  days,  though  of  course  this  particular 
number,  rather  than  thirty-five  or  forty-five,  suggests  an 
intentional  parallehsm  with  the  experience  of  Moses  and 
Elijah  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28 ;   i  Kings  xix.  8). 

The  place  of  temptation  is  located  indefinitely  in  the 
wilderness,  a  name  given  especially  to  the  wild  region 
of  Judea  on  the  west  side  of  the  Dead  Sea  (Num.  xxi. 
20;  xxiii.  28).  Somewhere  in  this  region  the  Baptist 
began  his  preaching  (Matt,  iii,  i).  Luke  says  that 
Jesus  rettmied  from  the  Jordan  (iv.  i),  and  so  seems  to 
have  thought  of  the  place  of  the  temptation  as  some- 
where along  the  route  which  Jesus  took  from  the  Jordan 


60  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

to  His  home  in  Nazareth.  The  traditional  site  is  a 
mountain  (Quarantania)  about  seven  miles  northwest 
from  Jericho. 

There  was  some  food  to  be  had  in  the  wilderness, 
such  as  locusts  and  wild  honey  (Matt.  iii.  4),  and  some 
suppose  that  Jesus  ate  these  as  the  Baptist  had  done. 
The  narrative  of  Mark  allows  this,  while  those  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,  since  they  imply  that  the  hunger  of 
Jesus  was  the  occasion  of  the  temptation  to  turn  stones 
into  bread,  teach  that  even  if  Jesus  partook  at  times  of 
locusts  and  wild  honey.  His  physical  need  was  not 
satisfied. 

Nothing  is  said  in  regard  to  the  reason  why  Jesus 
fasted.  It  may  be  supposed  that  He  was  so  absorbed 
in  contemplation  of  His  Messianic  work  that  He  was 
not  conscious  of  the  need  of  His  body.  When  the 
period  of  intense  thought  and  emotion  was  past,  He  be- 
came aware  of  hunger.  There  is  certainly  no  reason  for 
supposing  that  Jesus  purposely  fasted  for  some  special 
end,  as  though  He  hoped  thereby  to  have  a  clearer 
mind  or  a  more  perfect  fellowship  with  the  Spirit.  The 
physical  was  simply  forgotten,  not  forcibly  suppressed. 

The  Form  of  the   Temptation. 

The  form  in  which  the  temptation  came  to  Jesus 
is  of  secondary  importance.  The  historical  fact  of  a 
temptation  is  conceded  even  by  such  writers  as  Keim,^ 
and  the  essential  thought  of  the  narrative  in  Matthew 

1  The  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara,  II.  319,  320. 


THE  TEMPTATION   OF  JESUS  6 1 

and  Luke,  is  in  the  main  at  least,  intelligible.  This 
being  the  case,  it  is  not  of  primary  importance  to  know 
hoiv  Jesus  was  tempted,  and  yet  this  question  is 
directly  suggested  by  the  form  of  the  narrative  in  the 
Synoptists,  and  is  not  without  a  certain  interest.  Of 
one  thing  we  may  be  reasonably  certain,  namely,  that 
the  narrative  is  symbolic.  Taken  literally,  it  is  not,  as 
Keim  says,  in  keeping  with  the  moral  character  of 
Jesus,  for  He  would  have  recognized  Satan  at  least 
after  the  first  temptation,  and  could  have  had  no  further 
parley  with  him.  Taken  literally,  the  third  tempta- 
tion would  cease  to  be  a  temptation  to  Jesus,  it  is  so 
gross.  Even  an  ordinarily  good  man  would  recoil  with 
horror  from  a  proposition  to  worship  the  devil,  this 
proposition  being  made  by  the  devil  in  person.  Fur- 
ther, it  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that  the  devil  actually 
carried  Jesus  to  the  top  of  the  temple  and  again  to  the 
top  of  some  high  mountain.  If  this  is  taken  literally, 
we  must  suppose  either  that  the  devil  forced  Him  to  go, 
which  is  inconceivable,  since  the  devil  had  never  had 
any  power  in  or  over  Jesus ;  or  we  must  suppose  that 
Jesus  went  voluntarily  with  the  devil,  which  is  an 
impossible  supposition,  for  to  have  gone  voluntarily 
with  the  devil  would  have  been  sin.  The  literal 
interpretation  of  the  story  therefore  is  not  to  be 
seriously   considered. 

The  narrative  is  not  a  historical  description  of 
outward  situations  and  spoken  words,  but  a  poetical 
representation   of   inward,  spiritual,   experiences.      To 


62  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

understand  it  in  this  way  is  in  keeping  with  the  method 
of  Jesus,  for  He  frequently  personified  spiritual  truth 
and  set  it  forth  in  a  dramatic  concrete  form  {e.g.  Luke 
X.  i8;  John  i.  51;  xiv.  30).  The  temptation  was  a 
spiritual  struggle.  Thoughts  were  presented  to  the 
mind  of  Jesus,  and  courses  of  action  were  suggested, 
which  He  recognized  as  Satanic  in  character.  To 
follow  out  the  suggestions  would  be  to  follow  Satan. 
When  Jesus  told  His  disciples  about  His  struggle  in 
the  wilderness.  He  put  the  spiritual  reality  in  a  popular 
and  comprehensible  form.  But  to  hold  that  the  narra- 
tive of  the  temptation  is  symbolic  is  by  no  means  to 
deny  the  reality  of  the  temptation  itself.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  vindicate  for 
the  narrative  a  historical  content. 

Content  of  the  Temptation. 

What  now  is  contained  in  these  symbols .?  What  was 
the  spiritual  struggle  which  Jesus  passed  through  in  the 
wilderness }  Plainly  it  was  concerned  with  the  Messianic 
career  which  had  just  been  opened  before  Him,  and 
more  particularly  with  the  method  of  realizing  the  Mes- 
sianic ideal.  The  narrative  consists  of  three  scenes, 
each  presenting  a  specific  temptation.  In  the  first 
scene,  Jesus  is  tempted  to  prove  His  Messiahship  by 
working  a  miracle  to  supply  His  hunger  (Matt.  iv.  3,  4 ; 
Luke  iv.  3,  4).  The  tempter  used  Christ's  physical 
need  as  a  ground  for  the  miracle.  Thus  he  approached 
Christ  along  the  line  of  His  physical  desire;   but  the 


THE  TEMPTATION   OF  JESUS  63 

temptation  itself  arose  out  of  the  violent  contrast  be- 
tween the  divine  assurance  of  Messiahship,  which  Jesus 
had  received  at  the  Jordan,  and  His  present  extreme 
need.  This  contrast  gave  force  to  the  tempter's  subtle 
insinuation,  when  he  said,  ^^  If  thou  art  the  Son  of 
God."  So  it  was  in  reality  a  temptation  to  doubt  the 
spiritual  assurance  which  had  been  given  to  Him  in  the 
hour  of  His  baptism,  when  God  had  said  to  Him,  ''Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son."  If  He  were  the  Messiah,  the 
helper  of  Israel  and  the  whole  world,  would  He  be  Him- 
self helpless  here  in  the  wilderness,  unable  to  procure 
food  for  His  hunger  t  Must  He  not  doubt  the  assur- 
ance of  His  Messiahship,  or  take  steps  to  satisfy  His 
immediate  need  by  drawing  on  the  power  which  that 
Messiahship  involves }  This  temptation  was  met  with 
the  truth  drawn  from  Israel's  experience  in  the  wilder- 
ness, that  there  is  something  more  important  than 
bread,  and  that  is  obedience  to  God  (Deut.  viii.  3). 
Jesus  felt  that  He  was  in  the  wilderness  under  the  im- 
pulse of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the  Spirit  did  not  bid  Him 
turn  stones  into  bread.  Therefore,  to  attempt  to  do 
that  would  be  to  exalt  bread  above  obedience.  He  is 
hungry,  it  is  true,  and  needs  bread,  but  He  is  not  to 
think  that  because  He  is  the  Messiah  He  may  supply 
His  table  miraculously.  So  Jesus,  though  conscious  of 
Messiahship,  saw  that  He  was  to  depend  upon  God  as 
He  had  always  done. 

The  second  temptation  was  a  temptation  to  prove  His 
Messiahship  by  some  act  which  would  call  out  the  prom- 


64  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

ised  aid  of  God  (Matt.  iv.  5-7 ;  Luke  iv.  9-12).  It  is  as 
though  the  tempter  had  said,  *'  I  see  that  you  trust  in 
the  word  of  God  which  you  have  just  quoted.  Cast 
yourself  upon  it,  then,  and  put  God  to  the  test.  Go 
and  throw  yourself  from  the  temple,  for  it  is  written, 
'  He  shall  give  his  angels  charge  over  thee,  to  keep 
thee  in  all  thy  ways  '  "  (Ps.  xci.  1 1). 

The  fair-sounding  suggestion  of  the  tempter  was  that 
Jesus  should  test  the  word  of  God.  As  the  Messiah, 
when  in  peril.  He  should  no  longer  by  the  exercise  of 
judgment  and  caution  seek  to  care  for  Himself,  but 
should  cast  Himself  into  danger,  trusting  to  the  super- 
natural intervention  of  God.  But  Jesus  recognized  that 
such  a  testing  of  the  word  of  God  would  really  be  a 
tempting  of  God,  and  so  be  sinful  (Deut.  vi.  16).  For 
it  would  involve  an  audacious  violation  of  certain  plain 
laws  of  God,  and  that  for  the  avowed  purpose  oi  forcing 
God  to  prove  His  faithfulness  to  His  promises.  It 
would  be  a  sin  against  humility  and  faith,  qualities 
which  should  be  perfect  in  the  Messiah.  It  would  be 
a  sin  against  reason  to  risk  His  life  for  an  ocular  proof 
of  God's  care,  when  He  had  received  the  clearest  assur- 
ance of  it  in  His  own  soul  but  a  few  days  before.  So 
Jesus,  in  rejecting  this  suggestion  of  the  tempter,  laid 
down  for  Himself  the  principle  that,  though  conscious 
of  Messiahship,  He  was  still  to  use  the  reason  which 
God  had  given  Him,  and  not  to  expect  that  divine  power 
would  be  manifested  in  His  case,  except  as  He  gave 
heed  to  divine  laws. 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  JESUS  65 

The  third  temptation  was  a  temptation  to  fall  in  with 
the  popular  idea  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  (Matt.  iv. 
8-10;  Luke  iv.  5-8),  that  the  Messiah  should  be  a 
greater  David,  and  should  establish  an  external  political 
sway  over  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  temptation 
in  this  instance  was  primarily  along  the  line  of  Jewish 
patriotism.  The  conception  of  the  kingdom  which  it 
involved  seemed  to  be  supported  by  many  Old  Testa- 
ment passages  which  refer  to  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah as  outward  and  material.  Herein  lay  the  force  of 
the  suggestion. 

In  this  third  temptation  there  is  no  question  about 
the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus.  The  tempter  no 
longer  says,  ''  If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  The  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus  is  granted.  The  temptation  now  con- 
cerns the  method  of  realizing  the  Messianic  ideal. 
Shall  this  be  the  method  of  physical  force,  which  was 
bound  up  with  the  popular  conception  of  the  kingdom, 
or  shall  it  be  a  spiritual  method }  Jesus  saw  that  to 
fall  in  with  the  popular  conception,  however  attractively 
that  might  be  presented,  would  virtually  be  to  worship 
Satan,  and  therefore  this  method  of  seeking  tc  establish 
the  Messianic  kingdom  was  rejected  once  for  all. 

Stibseqiient  Temptations. 

These  three  scenes,  we  are  to  suppose,  exhausted  the 
possibilities  of  tempting  Jesus  at  this  time  in  regard  to 
His  Messianic  work.  But  His  temptation  was  not  lim- 
ited to  the  wilderness.     The  statement  of  Luke  (iv.  13) 

F 


66  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

that  the  tempter  left  Jesus  for  a  time  is  in  accord  with 
words  spoken  by  Jesus  Himself.  On  one  occasion, 
looking  back  over  His  entire  ministry,  He  said  to  His 
disciples,  "  Ye  are  they  who  have  continued  with  me  in 
my  temptations  "  ^  (Luke  xxii.  28).  We  have  in  Mark 
viii.  33  a  suggestion  as  to  the  character  of  these  temp- 
tations, when  Jesus  calls  Peter  Satan,  because  Peter  had 
sought  to  turn  Him  from  His  course  of  suffering.  We 
are  probably  not  to  think  that  the  clear  positions  at 
which  Jesus  arrived  while  in  the  wilderness  were  subse- 
quently obscured.  The  word  which  He  spoke  in  Mark 
iii.  27  implies  that  He  had  bound  the  ''strong  man," 
that  is,  Satan,  and  therefore  He  was  able  to  "  spoil  his 
goods,"  that  is,  to  cast  out  demons.  But  while  this 
passage,  and  also  the  narrative  of  the  temptation,  sug- 
gest that  the  victory  of  Jesus  in  the  wilderness  was 
decisive,  they  do  not  imply  that  He  was  henceforth  free 
from  temptation,  and  the  word  in  Mark  to  the  effect 
that  Satan  was  bound,  that  is,  as  related  to  Jesus,  can- 
not be  taken  without  modification  (Mark  viii.  33 ;  John 
xiv.  30).  Jesus  doubtless  came  from  the  wilderness 
with  certain  clear  and  unalterable  conceptions  in  regard 
to  the  Messiah's  work,  but  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  maintenance  of  these  conceptions  brought  no  real 
trials  to  His  spirit,  for  all  men,  even  His  nearest  friends, 
were  opposed  to  His  conceptions  of  Messiahship,  and 
adherence  to  His  views  brought  what  appeared  to  be 
general  and  irretrievable  defeat. 

1  irecpaafMoTs. 


CHAPTER   VI 

A  Bird's-eye  View  of  the  Ministry  of  Jesus 

Intro  dtictio7t. 

The  evangelists  plainly  did  not  attach  such  value  to 
the  external  setting  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  and  to  the 
sequence  of  events  as  these  things  often  have  in  the 
eyes  of  modern  scholars.  We  can  get  from  their  narra- 
tives a  general  view  of  the  movements  of  Jesus,  also  of 
important  dates,  but  we  must  confess  that  this  view  is 
only  general  and  approximate.  Our  information  regard- 
ing times  and  places  and  the  detail  of  His  journeys  is 
seldom  exact.  After  all  the  investigation  devoted  to 
these  points  most  of  the  statements  that  can  be  made 
might  appropriately  be  followed  by  marks  of  interroga- 
tion. Thus  there  have  been,  and  still  are,  wide 
differences  in  regard  to  the  time  that  elapsed  between 
the  baptism  and  the  crucifixion. 

Length  of  the  Mmistry  of  Jesus.     Extreme  Views. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  and  some  other  early  writers 
held  that  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  continued  only 
one  year.  This  view  was  based  on  Luke  iv.  19,  *'the 
acceptable  year  of  the  Lord."     Some  modern  writers, 

67 


68  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

as  Keim,  adopt  this  view,  but  base  it  upon  the  fact  that 
the  Synoptists  mention  only  one  Passover  in  the  min- 
istry of  Jesus.  Neither  of  these  arguments  is  valid. 
It  is  plainly  unsafe  to  take  the  symbolic  language  which 
Luke  quotes  from  Isaiah,  as  an  exact  chronological 
statement :  — 

"  He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  release  to  the  captives, 
And  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind, 
To  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised, 
To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord." 

And  the  fact  that  the  Synoptists  mention  only  one  Pass- 
over has  little  weight  when  it  is  remembered  that  they 
manifestly  do  not  aim  to  give  a  chronological  outline 
of  Christ's  life.  Further,  while  the  Synoptists  make 
explicit  mention  of  only  one  Passover  in  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus,  they  yet  seem  to  imply  that  there  was 
more  than  one  when  they  represent  Jesus  as  saying  to 
Jerusalem,  "  How  ofteii  would  I  have  gathered  thy  chil- 
dren together"  (Matt,  xxiii.  37;  Luke  xiii.  34).  This 
word  was  spoken  before  the  last  Passover,  and  plainly 
implies  earlier  visits.  But  Jesus  seems  to  have  visited 
Jerusalem  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  at  the  times  of  the 
feasts,  and  therefore  the  plurality  of  visits  implied  in 
the  passage  just  cited  can  scarcely  be  brought  within 
a  single  year. 

Moreover,  the  view  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  con- 
tinued only  one  year  or  one  year  and  a  fraction,  has 
against  it  the  great  difficulty  of  crowding  into  so  brief 


A   BIRD'S-EYE   VIEW   OF  THE   MINISTRY  69 

a  space  all  the  events  that  are  recorded  by  the  Synop- 
tists.  They  know  of  extended  sojourns  in  Capernaum, 
of  several  tours  through  Galilee,  of  periods  of  with- 
drawal into  solitude  with  the  disciples ;  they  know  of 
the  gradual  growth  of  a  band  of  followers,  from  whom 
at  length  twelve  apostles  were  chosen,  and  they  know 
of  a  somewhat  protracted  training  of  these  apostles. 
They  know  of  a  period  of  increasing  popularity  that 
was  long  enough  for  people  living  in  Idumea  and  in 
the  region  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  bring  their  sick  to 
Jesus ;  and  they  know  of  the  decline  of  that  popularity, 
and  of  a  train  of  events  leading  at  last  to  the  death  of 
Jesus.  It  seems  to  me  impossible  to  bring  all  these 
events,  some  of  which  require  not  a  little  time,  within 
the  compass  of  a  single  year. 

A  second  extreme  view  is  that  of  Irenaeus,  who  held 
that  Jesus  attained  the  age  of  more  than  forty  years, 
and  taught  more  than  ten  years.  He  found  Scripture 
support  for  this  in  John  viii.  57,  where  the  Jews  say, 
"Thou  art  not  y^^ fifty  years  old,"  and  he  also  appealed 
to  tradition.  This  view  has  a  recent  advocate  in  Delff,^ 
who  thinks  Jesus  was  more  than  forty  years  old  when 
His  ministry  began.  He  bases  this  upon  the  remark 
of  the  Jews  (John  viii.  57),  and  finds  confirmation  in 
the  circumstance  that,  when  Jesus  began  His  ministry. 
His  brothers  and  sisters,  at  least  six  in  number,  all 
appear  to  have  been  mature  men  and  women.  But  it 
is  manifest  that  neither  of  these  facts  furnishes  any 

1  Die  Geschichte  des  Rabbi  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  1889^  pp.  50,  251. 


JO  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

solid  ground  for  the  view  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  was 
ten  years  in  length. 

The  Probable  View. 

The  Synoptists  give  no  definite  information  on  the 
length  of  Christ's  ministry,  but,  as  has  been  said,  the 
character  and  amount  of  their  material  point  to  a  minis- 
try of  more  than  one  year.  The  Gospel  of  John,  how- 
ever, refers  certainly  to  three  Passovers  in  the  period  of 
Christ's  public  work  (ii.  13  ;  vi.  4;  xii.  i),  and  therefore 
implies  a  ministry  of  at  least  two  full  years.  In  another 
passage  (v.  i)  he  refers  to  a  feast  which  some  beUeve 
to  have  been  a  Passover.  If  this  view  were  established 
John  would  witness  for  a  public  ministry  of  three  ^  full 
years.  But  the  objections  to  finding  a  Passover  in  John 
V.  I  seem  to  be  conclusive.  First,  the  preponderance 
of  m.anuscript  authority  is  for  the  reading  a  feast,  not 
the  feast.2  It  is,  however,  wholly  unhkely  that  John 
would  refer  to  the  great  feast  of  the  Passover  simply  as 
a  feast  of  the  Jews.  In  every  other  case  he  calls  it  by 
its  name,  the  Passover,  and  when  he  adds  to  this  the 
yNOxA  feast,  he  says  the  feast  (vi.  4).  Second,  if  the  feast 
of  V.  I  is  a  Passover,  then  out  of  an  entire  year  of  Christ's 
ministry  John  records  only  a  single  incident,  namely,  the 

1  It  is  manifestly  unsafe  to  find  support  for  this  view  in  the  words  of 
the  parable,  "  Behold,  these  three  years  I  come  seeking  fruit  on  this  fig 
tree  "   (Luke  xiii.  7). 

2  Wescott  and  Hort  read  kopr-i]^  not  17  eoprrj.  See  Tischendorf, 
Novum  Testamentum  Graece,  editio  octavo  critica  major,  for  the  various 
readings. 


A   BIRD'S-EYE  VIEW   OF  THE   MINISTRY  7 1 

healing  of  a  sick  man  in  Jerusalem,  for  chapter  vi.  4 
brings  us  to  another  Passover.  But  it  is  highly  improb- 
able that  John  records  only  a  single  event  for  a  whole 
year  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  Third,  the  reference  in 
vii.  23  to  the  man  who  had  been  healed  in  chapter  v.  is 
against  taking  the  feast  of  v.  i  as  a  Passover,  since  in 
that  case  a  year  and  a  half  had  elapsed  between  the  heal- 
ing and  the  reference  to  it,  for  this  reference  is  made  at 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  2),  and  one  Passover 
had  intervened  between  this  and  the  feast  of  John  v.  i 
(John  vi.  4).  But  this  reference  is  more  easily  under- 
stood if  the  case  of  healing  was  still  fresh  in  the  minds 
of  the  hearers. 

Hence  we  conclude  that  John  v.  i  does  not  refer  to  a 
Passover,  and  consequently  that  John  witnesses  for  a 
public  ministry  of  two  full  years.  This  time  must  be 
slightly  extended,  since  the  public  life  of  Jesus  dates 
from  His  baptism,  and  between  the  baptism  and  the  first 
Passover  fell  the  temptation,  the  tarrying  by  the  Jordan, 
the  sojourn  in  Cana,  and  the  visit  in  Capernaum.  If 
the  forty  days  of  the  temptation  be  understood  literally, 
then  this  interval  between  the  baptism  and  the  Passover 
may  have  been  seven  or  eight  weeks  in  length.  If  then 
Jesus  was  thirty  years  old  at  the  time  of  His  baptism, 
He  was  a  little  more  than  thirty-two  when  He  was  cru- 
cified. Thus  He  died  and  rose  again  in  the  early  prime 
of  manhood.  The  disproportion  between  the  brevity  of 
His  ministry  and  its  vast  results  is  wholly  without  a 
parallel  in  history. 


72  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

A   Chronological  Outline. 

The  fourth  Gospel  is  the  only  one  that  has  a  chrono- 
logical framework.  The  Synoptic  narratives  have  no 
definite  articulation.  Their  incidents  and  sayings  are 
loosely  connected,  and  frequently  not  located.  With 
the  exception  of  the  events  that  belong  in  the  first  days 
of  the  ministry,  in  the  days  spent  near  Caesarea  Philippi, 
and  in  the  last  week,  the  Synoptists  differ  widely  in  the 
order  of  their  arrangement  of  common  material.^  They 
agree,  however,  in  presenting  a  ministry  that  began  in 
Galilee  after  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist,  that  was 
mainly  passed  in  Galilee  in  various  tours  of  indefinite 
duration,  and  that  terminated  in  Jerusalem  at  a  Passover 
which  is  not  chronologically  located  with  reference  to 
the  beginning  of  the  ministry.  John,  on  the  other  hand, 
presents  a  narrative  which  is  anchored  to  definite  places 
and  divided  by  fixed  dates.  As  his  material  is  almost 
entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Synoptists,  he  does 
not  give  us  direct  aid  in  the  arrangement  of  their  mate- 
rial. However,  his  chronological  outline  affords  the  only 
working  hypothesis  that  we  have  for  the  disposition  of 
the  content  of  the  Synoptists,  and  it  is  an  outline  which 
appears  to  be  adequate  and  satisfactory. ^  It  does  not 
enable  one  to  locate  all  the  events  of  the  Synoptic  nar- 
rative, but  one  may  readily  admit  that  all  these  events 
might  consistently  be  located  within  it,  if  we  had  fuller 
information  in  regard  to  their  setting. 

1  See  Appendix,  pp.  369-371. 

2  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  fesu,  I.  250  ;   Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu^  I.  1 10. 


A   BIRD'S-EYE  VIEW  OF  THE  MINISTRY  73 

According  to  John's  chronological  outline  we  have 
eight  milestones  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  not  all,  how- 
ever, fixed  with  equal  definiteness. 

1.  The  first  of  these  eight  milestones  is  the  first  Pass- 
over (John  ii.  13). 

The  time  required  by  the  narrative  of  John  up  to  this 
point  is  indefinite.  It  includes  "  not  many  days  in  Ca- 
pernaum "  (John  ii.  12);  a  visit  in  Cana  (John  ii.  i); 
three  days  between  this  visit  and  the  hour  when  the 
Baptist  pointed  Jesus  out  to  his  disciples  (John  i.  29; 
ii.  i);  and  a  preceding  period  in  which  John  had  become 
so  famous  that  a  commission  was  sent  to  him  from 
Jerusalem  to  make  personal  investigation  (John  i.  19). 
In  this  indefinite  period  belong  the  baptism  and  the 
temptation  of  Jesus,  events  which,  on  a  literal  inter- 
pretation of  the  "forty  days,"  cover  about  six  weeks. 
How  long  John  had  preached  before  Jesus  came  to  be 
baptized  does  not  appear  from  the  Synoptic  narrative. 
However,  John  and  Jesus  are  represented  as  beginning 
their  ministry  in  the  same  year  (Luke  iii.   1-23). 

2.  The  second  milestone  is  found  in  the  words 
of  Jesus  at  the  well  of  Sychar  (John  iv.  35).  He 
said  to  His  disciples,  "Say  not  ye,  there  are  yet 
four  months,  and  then  cometh  harvest  ? "  Now  the 
harvest  began  to  be  gathered  about  the  first  of  April. 
Four  months  prior  to  that  would  be  the  first  of 
December.^      Some   writers  ^   have    thought   that   this 

1  Comp.  Weiss,  Das  Lebenjesu,  I.  420. 

2  E.g.,  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  /esu,  I.  134. 


74  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Statement  might  be  regarded  as  a  proverb,  and  thus 
have  no  bearing  on  the  time  of  year  when  Jesus  was  in 
Samaria.  But  it  is  difficult  to  regard  this  as  a  designa- 
tion of  the  interval  between  sowing  and  reaping,  since 
that  interval  was  six  months  rather  than  four.  Then 
the  word  j^^*,  —  '^  There  are  j/e^  four  months,"  seems  to 
indicate  plainly  that  the  statement  is  chronological.  The 
view  of  this  passage  is  surely  unexegetical  which  inverts 
the  order  of  the  clauses,  and  puts  the  reference  to 
"white  fields"  first. ^  For  the  words  of  Christ  intro- 
ducing this  statement  presuppose  just  such  a  thought 
as  has  gone  before.  Christ's  emphatic  "/  say"  is 
plainly  the  antithesis  of  what  t/iej/  were  saying,  and  pre- 
supposes it. 

And  further,  if  this  inversion  is  made,  the  other 
statement  about  there  being  yet  four  months  before 
harvest  seems  unintelligible.  Edersheim  thinks  the 
disciples  were  at  this  time  discouraged  by  the  apparent 
remoteness  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  But  apart  from 
the  difficulty  of  attributing  to  them  such  a  thought  at 
this  early  day,  before  the  ministry  of  Christ  had  really 
begun,  there  is  no  ground  for  this  figurative  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words :  ''  There  are  yet  four  months  and 
the  harvest  comes." 

Of  this  period  which  Jesus  spent  in  Judea,  the 
Synoptists  have  no  trace.  Their  narrative  puts  the 
beginning  of  the  Galilean  ministry  immediately  after 
the    temptation    in    the    wilderness   (Luke  iv.    14),    or 

1  Edersheim,  Life  and  Tiities  of  Jesus  the  Alessiah,  II.  Appendix  xv. 


A   BIRD'S-EYE   VIEW   OF  THE   MINISTRY  75 

after   the   imprisonment   of   the  Baptist   (Mark   i.    14; 
Matt.  iv.  12). 

3.  The  third  milestone  is  the  unnamed  feast  of  John 
V.  I,  which,  since  it  came  shortly  before  the  Passover 
(John  vi.  4),  we  identify  with  the  feast  of  Purim,  which, 
according  to  Josephus,^  came  on  the  14th  and  15th  of 
the  month  Adar.^  In  this  period  of  approximately 
three  months  the  Synoptic  material  up  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  twelve  apostles  is  to  be  placed.  This  view 
that  Jesus,  after  He  had  sent  out  the  twelve,  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  to  the  Purim  feast  is  strongly  favored  by 
two  circumstances :  first,  in  John's  account  of  Jesus' 
visit  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Purim,  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  presence  of  His  disciples  (John  v.  1-47); 
and  second,  when  Jesus  left  Jerusalem,  John  says  He 
went  to  the  other  side  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  (John  vi.  i). 
Here,  moreover,  he  falls  in  with  the  Synoptic  narrative, 
which  relates  that  straightway  after  the  return  of  the 
twelve  from  their  mission  Jesus  took  them  across  to  the 
east  side  of  the  lake  (Mark  vi.  30-32  ;  Luke  ix.  10). 
Thus  the  fourth  Gospel  affords  what  appears  to  be  solid 
ground  for  the  chronological  location  of  the  Synoptic 
material  that  precedes  the  mission  of  the  twelve. 

4.  The  fourth  milestone  is  the  Passover  of  John 
vi.  4,^  one  month  after  the  feast  of  Purim.     This  Pass- 

1  Antiquities,  xi.  6.  13. 

2  Wieseler,  Chronologische  Synopse,  pp.  211-223. 

3  The  fact  that  some  of  the  Fathers  seem  not  to  have  had  rh  Trdo-xa  in  their 
texts  of  this  passage  does  not  neutralize  the  witness  of  all  extant  Mss.  and 
Versions.     Yet  see  Wescott  and  Hort,  Introduction,  Appendix,  pp.  jy-Si. 


76  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

over  Jesus  appears  not  to  have  attended  (John  vii.  i). 
Shortly  before  this  Passover  occurred  the  feeding  of 
the  five  thousand  on  the  northeast  of  the  Lake  of 
Galilee  (John  vi.  4). 

5.  The  fifth  milestone  is  the  feast  of  Tabernacles 
mentioned  in  John  vii.  2,  10.  This  occurred  on  the 
15th  of  the  seventh  month  (Tisri),  that  is,  about  the 
middle  of  October.^  This  fourth  period  therefore  was 
one  of  just  six  months.  In  it  is  to  be  placed  at  least 
the  greater  part  of  the  Synoptic  material  which  is 
included  between  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  and 
the  final  departure  from  Galilee  (Mark  x.  i).^ 

6.  The  sixth  milestone  is  the  feast  of  Dedication 
(John  X.  22).  This  was  an  eight-day  festival,  and 
began  on  the  25th  of  the  month  Kislev^  (December), 
somewhat  more  than  two  months  after  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles.  Where  Jesus  spent  this  period  is  not 
indicated.  From  John's  references  to  the  hostility  of 
the  leaders  in  Jerusalem  we  may  perhaps  infer  that 
Jesus  did  not  spend  much  of  the  time  there  (John 
vii.  19,  30,  32,  44;  viii.  20,  59). 

7.  The  seventh  milestone  is  the  raising  of  Lazarus. 
This  brought  Jesus  from  Perea  to  Bethany,  in  Judea, 
not  long  before  the  last  Passover  (John  x.  40; 
xi.  7,  17,   55).      The   length    of   this   period   therefore 


1  Lev.  xxiii.  34. 

2  Comp.  Wieseler,  Chronologische  Synopse,   pp.    316-319  ;    Beyschlag, 
Das  Leben  Jesii,  I.  pp.  272,  273  ;   Weiss,  Das  Lehen  Jesu,  II.  379. 

"^  I  Maccabees  iv.  56-59. 


A  BIRD'S-EYE   VIEW  OF  THE   MINISTRY  J  J 

is  approximately  three  months.  According  to  John  this 
period  was  spent  in  Perea,  and  the  work  of  Jesus  was 
fruitful  (John  x.  40-42).  In  this  period  we  are  to  place 
the  Perean  material  of  the  Synoptists,  little  in  Mark 
and  Matthew  (Mark  x.  1-45  ;  Matt,  xix.),  more  in  Luke, 
but  uncertain  just  how  much.  He  seems  to  have 
regarded  the  Galilean  ministry  of  Jesus  as  practically 
ended  when  He  set  His  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem 
(Luke  ix.  51),  and  accordingly  we  may  suppose  that 
most  of  the  incidents  related  before  xviii.  31  were 
thought  by  him  to  have  occurred  in  Samaria  and  Perea. 
The  story  of  Mary  and  Martha  (Luke  x.  38-42)  of 
course  takes  us  to  Bethany,  in  Judea,  and  the  incident 
regarding  Herod  must  have  transpired  when  Jesus 
was  in  the  territory  over  which  Herod  ruled  (Luke 
xiii.  31-33),  and  as  it  was  not  long  before  the  death 
of  Jesus,  we  must  think  of  Perea,  rather  than  Galilee, 
as  the  scene  of  the  event.  The  incidents  which 
follow  this,  with  the  exception  of  the  passage  con- 
cerning the  ten  lepers  (Luke  xvii.  11-19),  may  all 
belong  to  the  Perean    ministry. 

8.  The  eighth  and  last  milestone  in  John  is  the  Pass- 
over at  which  Jesus  was  crucified  (John  xii.  i;  xix.  18). 
The  time  between  this  and  the  seventh  is  indefinite. 
Jesus  came  to  Bethany  six  days  before  the  Passover, 
and  from  John  xi.  55  we  may  judge  that  the  stay  in 
Ephraim  was  short  —  perhaps  a  couple  of  weeks. 

9.  This  chronological  outline  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
is    completed     by    adding     the     period     between    the 


78  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF   JESUS 

resurrection  and   the   ascension,  which   Luke  gives  as 
a  period  of  forty  days  (Acts  i.  3). 

A    Topographical   Outline. 

The  scenes  of  Jesus'  ministry  are  no  more  definitely 
fixed  than  the  times.  We  have  data  for  an  approxi- 
mate topographical  outline,  but  at  many  points  the 
Gospels  leave  us  in  uncertainty  or  in  absolute  ignorance. 
Prior  to  the  first  Passover  Jesus  was  at  the  Jordan 
(Mark  i.  9),  then  in  the  wilderness  (Mark  i.  12),  a  second 
time  at  the  Jordan  (John  i.  29),  then  in  Cana  (John  ii.  i) 
and  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12).  From  the  first  Passover 
to  December  of  the  same  year  He  was  in  Judea  (John 
iii.  22),  having  at  first  spent  a  few  days  in  Jerusalem 
(John  ii.  23).  From  December  to  March  He  was  in 
Galilee  with  the  exception  of  a  brief  sojourn  in  Samaria 
(John  iv.  3,  43 ;  Mark  i.  14).  From  the  Purim  feast  to 
the  second  Passover  He  was  in  Jerusalem  for  a  time 
(John  V.  i),  and  then  in  Galilee  (John  vi.  i;  Mark  vi. 
30-32).  Between  the  second  Passover  and  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles  of  the  same  year  Jesus  was  in  Galilee 
most  of  the  time  (John  vii.  i),  though  He  visited  the 
region  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  (Mark  vii.  24;  Matt.  xv.  21), 
and  spent  some  time  in  Decapolis  (Mark  vii.  31  ; 
viii.  22).  Between  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  and  the 
following  December  Jesus  made  a  visit  in  Jerusalem 
(John  vii.  10),  but  for  most  of  the  time  was  probably 
elsewhere,  either  in  Judea  or  Perea.  From  the  feast  of 
Dedication  (December)  to  the   raising  of    Lazarus  He 


A   BIRD'S-EYE   VIEW  OF  THE   MINISTRY  79 

was  in  Perea  (John  x.  40-42  ;  xi.  7).  From  the  raising 
of  Lazarus  until  a  week  before  the  last  Passover  He 
was  in  Ephraim  (John  xi.  54;  xii.  i);  the  last  week 
was  passed  in  Bethany  and  in  Jerusalem.  After  His 
resurrection  the  Lord  appeared  to  His  disciples  chiefly 
in  Jerusalem  and  its  vicinity,  though  He  also  appeared 
by  the  lake  of  Galilee  and  on  an  unknown  Galilean 
mountain. 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Ministry 

Winning  the  First  Disciples. 

After  the  temptation,  Jesus  and  John  saw  each  other 
again  at  the  Jordan,  and  the  meeting  was  for  both  im- 
portant. For  John,  because  it  gave  him  repeated  oppor- 
tunity to  bear  pubUc  testimony  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah  (John  i.  29-34) ;  and  for  Jesus,  because  it  gave 
Him  His  first  disciples.  The  testimony  of  the  Baptist 
has  been  denied  to  him  wholly  ^  or  in  part,^  and  has  been 
attributed  to  the  evangelist,  in  the  thought  that  it  is  too 
spiritual  and  universalistic  to  fit  the  forerunner.  It  is 
doubtless  to  be  admitted  that  the  testimony  of  the  Bap- 
tist is  not  given  in  his  own  words  but  in  the  evangelist's, 
and  also  that  the  evangelist  may  have  read  into  the 
words  of  the  Baptist  more  than  their  author  clearly 
intended;  but  it  is  to  be  remembered,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  even  in  the  Synoptists  we  find  that  the  Bap- 
tist was  deeply  impressed  by  the  personality  of  the  Mes- 
siah (Matt.  iii.  14),  and  that  the  Messiah  bore  witness 
to  the  greatness  of  the  Baptist  (Matt.   xi.  9-11).     If 

^  E.g.,  Yio\izv!xz.nr\,  Johajineisches  Evangelium,  pp.  t^Z,  39. 
2  E.g.,  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  349,  350. 
80 


THE   BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   MINISTRY  8 1 

Jesus  regarded  him  as  the  Elijah  who  should  precede 
the  Messiah,  it  would  certainly  be  remarkable  if  he  had 
no  appreciation  at  all  of  the  spiritual  and  fundamental 
side  of  the  Messiah's  work  as  sketched,  for  example, 
by  Isaiah.  So  the  testimony  of  the  Synoptists  stands 
in  the  way  of  a  sweeping  denial  of  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  words  which  John  ascribes  to  the  Baptist. 

Moreover,  the  minutely  circumstantial  character  of 
the  entire  passage  regarding  the  Baptist  (John  i.  19-39) 
is  an  argument  that  the  words  attributed  to  the  Baptist 
have  some  historical  basis.  Yet  it  is  difficult  to  suppose 
that  John  the  Baptist  spoke  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  and 
that  he  put  it  in  the  forefront  of  His  services  for  man- 
kind. For,  according  to  the  Synoptists,  he  thought  that 
the  Messiah  would  at  once  separate  the  wheat  from  the 
chaff,  and  set  up  His  Kingdom  (Matt.  iii.  12;  Luke  iii. 
17).  But  this  view  seems  to  leave  no  place  in  his 
thought  for  the  death  of  the  Messiah.  Moreover,  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  even  those  who  came  from  the  school 
of  the  Baptist,  were  never  able  to  associate  the  thought 
of  death  with  their  Messiah  (Mark  viii.  32 ;  ix.  32 ; 
Luke  xviii.  34).  How,  then,  can  this  thought  have 
been  part  of  the  teaching  of  John  ? 

This  second  meeting  with  John  was  important  for 
Jesus,  as  just  observed,  because  it  gave  Him  His  first 
disciples.  There  is  no  indication  that  the  Baptist 
directly  suggested  to  his  disciples  that  they  should 
leave  him  and  follow  Jesus.  All  that  he  did  was  to 
testify  that  Jesus  was   the  Messiah.     This,  of  course, 


82  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

implied  that  it  was  their  duty  to  follow  Him ;  and  when 
the  Baptist  pointed  to  Jesus  a  second  time  with  words 
of  Messianic  significance,  two  of  his  disciples,  Andrew 
and  John,^  went  after  Jesus.  They  had  a  long  inter- 
view with  Him  in  His  lodging,  and  were  convinced  that 
He  was  the  Messiah.  More  than  a  half  century  later, 
John  remembered  the  exact  hour  of  this  meeting  with 
Jesus  (John  i.  39).  Simon,  Philip,  and  Nathanael  were 
soon  won  by  Jesus,  making  five  in  the  first  circle  of 
disciples.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  three  were 
also  disciples  of  the  Baptist,  for  they  lived  at  a  distance 
from  the  scene  of  the  baptism  (Simon  and  Philip  in 
Bethsaida,  John  i.  44,  and  Nathanael  in  Cana,  John 
xxi.  2),  and  we  must  suppose  that  they  had  been  drawn 
thither  by  the  call  of  the  Baptist.  Thus  four,  probably 
five  (if  Nathanael  and  Bartholomew  were  names  of  the 
same  person),  of  the  subsequent  twelve  apostles  had 
been  under  the  tuition  of  the  Baptist.  Others  may  have 
been.  This  group  of  four  included  the  chief  apostles, 
Peter,  James,  and  John.  All  the  five  were  Galileans, 
which  is  remarkable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  all  the  Gos- 
pels speak  of  John's  influence  upon  Judea,  but  no  one 
mentions  Galilee. 

In  connection  with  the  call  of  these  men  two  inci- 
dents   are    especially    noteworthy.      In    the    case    of 

1  The  evangelist  identifies  himself  with  the  beloved  disciple  (xix.  26, 
35).  He  does  not  name  this  disciple;  but  since  he  names  Peter  (i.  41, 
42),  and  since  the  brother  of  John  vi^as  martyred  in  44  A.D.  (Acts  xii.  2), 
he  evidently  claims  to  be  John,  for  according  to  the  Synoptists  the  three 
intimate  disciples  were  Peter,  James,  and  John. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   MINISTRY  83 

Nathanael,  Jesus  seems  to  have  been  given  a  more 
than  human  knowledge.  He  not  only  read  his 
character  as  he  approached,  but  He  also  declared  that 
He  had  seen  him  under  the  fig  tree  (John  i.  47,  48). 
This  seeing  impressed  Nathanael  as  supernatural,  and 
is  so  presented  by  the  evangelist  (John  i.  49).  Whether 
the  fig  tree  was  in  distant  Cana,  or  elsewhere,  cannot  be 
certainly  determined,  even  as  we  do  not  know  the  time 
when  Nathanael  was  under  the  fig  tree.  If  the  tree  was 
not  beyond  the  range  of  mortal  vision,^  then  Nathanael 
must  have  been  impressed  by  the  thought  that,  while 
he  was  under  the  fig  tree,  Jesus  had  looked  into  his 
heart.  It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  what  impressed 
Nathanael  so  deeply  was  not  regarded  by  Jesus  as  the 
highest  evidence  of  His  Messiahship.  He  told  him 
that  in  the  future  he  should  see  more  striking  proof 
than  was  contained  in  the  fact  that  He  had  seen  him 
under  the  fig  tree  (John  i.  50,  51).  With  regard  to 
Peter  the  narrative  does  not  require  us  to  think  of 
supernatural  knowledge.  Jesus  gave  to  Simon  a  new 
name,  which  implied  that  He  saw  to  the  centre  of  his 
character  (John  i.  42)^.  For  Simon  was  an  impulsive 
man,  and,  superficially  judged,  was  not  2i petros^  a  rock. 
And  yet  this  deep  insight  of  Jesus  does  not  transcend 
the  limits  of  human  knowledge.  If  sinful  men  have 
often  had  remarkable  insight  into  the  character  of  their 

1  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  II.  130,  note. 

2  The  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi  shows  that  Jesus  had  made  no  mistake 
in  giving  to  Simon  the  name  Petros  (Matt.  xvi.  18). 


84  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

fellows,  much  more  may  Jesus,  whose  faculties  had  not 
been  dulled  and  obscured  by  sin. 

When  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  transcended  all  human 
limitations,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  His  Mes- 
sianic equipment,  a  gift  from  the  Father,  justified  by 
the  needs  of  His  work.  For  He  Himself  teaches  thai, 
in  the  parallel  case  of  supernatural  power.  He  is  depend- 
ent upon  God,  working  His  miracles  by  a  power  no!. 
inherent  in  Himself  (Matt.  xii.  28 ;  Luke  xi.  20).^ 

The    Wedding  in  Cana. 

On  the  third  day  after  leaving  the  Jordan,  j  esus  with 
His  five  disciples  ^  attended  a  wedding  in  Cana  of  Galilee 
(John  ii.  i).  This  place,  if  identified  with  the  modern 
Kefi^  Kenna,^  as  it  probably  should  be,  was  between 
three  and  four  miles  northeast  from  Nazareth  on  the 
road  to  Capernaum.  Jesus  seems  to  have  been  asked 
to  the  wedding  because  His  mother  was  there,  and  His 
disciples  were  probably  asked  out  of  respect  to  Him. 
There  is  some  evidence  that  Cana  was  at  this  time  the 
home  of  Mary.  Thus  in  John  iv.  46,  when  Jesus 
returns  to  Galilee  after  the  early  Judean  ministry. 
He  goes  at  once  to  Cana,  which  is  natural  if  His  mother 
was  there.  Again,  when  Jesus  visited  Nazareth,  His 
townspeople  said,  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son 
of  Mary,  and  brother  of  James,  and  Joses,  and  Judas,  and 

1  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  /esus,  pp.  167-174. 

2  Or  six,  if  John  i.  41  implies  that,  as  Andrew  found  his  own  brother 
Jirst,  so  John  found  his  brother  James  also,  but  later  than  Andrew. 

3  Badeker,  Pal'dstina  und  Syrien,  pp.  243,  252. 


THE  BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  MINISTRY  85 

Simon?  and  are  not  his  sisters  here  zvith  iLsf  (Mark 
vi.  3).  This  passage  suggests  that  the  mother  and  broth- 
ers had  left  Nazareth,  while  the  sisters  had  remained. 
Then,  in  John  ii.  12,  we  read  that  the  brothers  of  Jesus 
went  with  Him  to  Capernaum,  after  the  wedding  in 
Cana,  though  no  mention  of  them  had  been  made  in 
connection  with  the  feast. 

The  contrast  between  the  Baptist's  mission  and  that 
of  Jesus  is  brought  out  vividly  by  this  wedding  in  Cana. 
John  went  into  the  wilderness,  Jesus  into  the  home. 
John  ate  only  locusts  and  wild  honey,  Jesus  partook  of 
a  marriage  feast.  John  pointed  forward  to  the  Mes- 
sianic kingdom  as  that  which  would  bring  joy  to  the 
righteous ;  Jesus  in  the  fulness  of  His  Messianic  power 
gives  joy. 

This  wedding  marks  the  beginning  of  the  wondrous 
works  of  Jesus.  Here  first  He  manifested  His  Messi- 
anic "glory"  (John  ii.  11).  It  is  not  altogether  clear 
what  His  mother  expected  of  Him  when  she  came  and 
announced  to  Him  that  the  wine  had  failed.  It  seems 
probable,  however,  on  the  whole,  that  she  had  at  least 
a  trembling  hope  that  Jesus  would  help  in  a  wondrous 
manner  befitting  Him  as  the  Messiah.  It  is  true  that 
Jesus  had  as  yet  wrought  no  miracle,  and  that  we  can 
not  safely  base  an  expectation  of  supernatural  help 
upon  the  events  connected  with  His  birth. ^  But  the 
events  of  the  past  few  weeks  must  have  been  known  to 
Mary.     It  is  incredible  that  the  disciples  who  had  come 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  365. 


86  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

with  Jesus,  who  were  full  of  the  thought  of  His  Mes- 
siahship,  had  not  told  of  the  occurrences  at  the  Jordan, 
and  of  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  of  their 
belief.  No  other  subject  of  conversation  could  be  for 
a  moment  compared  with  that.  Knowing  then  what 
His  disciples  knew  about  her  Son,  she  may  well  have 
come  to  Him  with  the  thought  that,  if  He  knew  of  the 
embarrassment  of  the  hosts.  He  would  relieve  them  in 
a  way  accordant  with  the  recent  revelations  (John  ii.  3). 

The  answer  of  Jesus  involves  two  points :  first,  that 
He  had  entered  upon  a  work  in  which  He  received 
directions  from  God,  not  from  earthly  friends ;  and 
second,  that  the  hour  for  Him  to  act,  that  is,  as  appears 
from  the  following  verses,  the  hour  for  Him  to  give 
help,  had  not  yet  come.  When  at  last  it  came,  in  what 
way  did  He  meet  the  emergency  ? 

Beyschlag  thinks  the  miracle  was  wholly  in  Christ's 
power  over  the  minds  of  the  company.^  He  thinks 
Jesus  had  opened  the  treasure  of  His  heart  and  spoken 
words  of  eternal  life,  and  that  all  hung  upon  His  lips 
entranced.  While  in  this  condition,  Mary  presented 
the  need  of  wine,  and  Jesus  after  a  moment  saw  that 
His  Father  would  glorify  Him  here.  "  He  feels  in 
Himself  the  momentary  power  to  extend  even  to  the 
senses  of  the  guests  that  fascination  over  the  spirit  which 
at  the  hour  streams  from  Him,  and  to  create  for  them 
out  of  the  simplest  elements  new  and  better  wedding 
wine.     He  will  set  before  them  simple,  clear  water,  and 

1  Das  Leden/esu,  II.  132-135. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   MINISTRY  8/ 

by  virtue  of  His  will,  which  controls  them  psychologi- 
cally, it  will  taste  like  the  most  precious  wine.  So 
by  a  wondrous  law  which  the  latest  science  has  estab- 
lished, and  not  by  a  transubstantiation  which  mocks 
all  natural  laws,  we  must  explain  the  miracle  at  Cana, 
without  lessening  its  genuinely  miraculous  character, 
its  derivation  from  the  nature-controlling,  holy  will- 
power of  Jesus." 

But  it  seems  impossible  to  hold  this  view  without 
doing  violence  to  the  text.  Thus  the  narrative  does 
not  say  a  word  about  Jesus'  teaching  on  this  occasion. 
Had  He  taught  so  as  to  produce  the  effect  which  this 
view  supposes,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  evangelist  has 
no  allusion  to  it.  Then  the  narrative  locates  the  conver- 
sation between  Mary  and  Jesus,  not  in  the  feasting  hall, 
but  in  the  room  where  the  water-pots  stood,  perhaps  the 
vestibule.  Further,  the  recorded  effect  of  the  miracle 
seems  to  be  against  the  view  that  it  consisted  in  a 
wondrous  influence  which  Jesus  exercised  over  the 
minds  of  the  guests.  For  if  the  entire  company  had 
been  so  impressed  by  Christ's  words  that  the  water 
which  He  gave  them  seemed  like  the  best  of  wine, 
then  it  is  remarkable  that  only  the  five  disciples  who 
had  followed  Him  from  the  Jordan  believed  on  Him 
(John  ii.  II ),  And  to  mention  yet  one  point  more, 
the  event  is  no  longer  a  miracle,  in  the  sense  in  which 
that  word  is  used  in  the  Gospels,  if  the  water  was 
changed  to  wine  only  in  the  imagination  of  those  who 
drank  it. 


88  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Another  view  of  the  event  is  this.^  Jesus  promised  to 
help,  believing  that  God  would  provide  the  means.  He 
turned  to  the  circle  of  His  disciples  for  assistance, 
which  they  could  not  render.  Then  in  a  way  unfore- 
seen, but  natural,  the  means  of  relief  presented  them- 
selves. It  was  a  miracle  of  divine  providence,  and  in 
later  times,  after  the  details  of  the  event  had  faded 
from  memory,  it  appeared  as  a  miracle  of  divine  power. 
The  real  significance  of  the  event  is  the  same  on  either 
view. 

Now  in  the  way  of  this  explanation  there  seem  to  be 
some  very  serious  obstacles.  There  is  no  evidence,  in 
the  first  place,  that  Jesus  ever  promised  to  help  those 
in  need  while  Himself  ignorant  whence  the  help  would 
come.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  believe  that  when 
God  prompted  Him  to  render  assistance,  He  at  the 
same  time  showed  Him  how  it  was  to  be  rendered. 
Christ  is  never  perplexed  in  regard  to  means.  His 
promise  to  help  is  followed  by  the  fulfilment  just  as 
though  He  clearly  saw  the  fulfilment  when  He  made 
the  promise.  The  story  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus  illus- 
trates this  point.  In  the  hour  when  the  messenger  came 
to  Jesus,  He  said,  ''This  sickness  is  not  unto  death, 
but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son  of  God  may  be 
glorified  thereby  "  (John  xi.  4).  Now  it  is  evident  from 
the  later  narrative  (John  xi.  41)  that  Jesus  was  assured, 
probably  in  the  very  hour  when  the  messenger  came,  that 
God  would  grant  Him  power  to  raise  Lazarus.    There  is 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  369,  370. 


THE  BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  MINISTRY  89 

nothing  in  the  life  of  Jesus  to  suggest  that  what  was  true 
in  this  case  was  not  also  true  in  all  other  cases. 

Again,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  men  who  saw  Jesus 
heal  the  sick  and  raise  the  dead  could,  either  at  the  time 
or  later,  have  regarded  a  merely  providential  supply  of 
wine  as  a  miracle  to  be  placed  by  the  side  of  the  rais- 
ing of  Lazarus.  If  the  wine  came  in  an  unforeseen 
but  wholly  natural  manner,  then  the  event,  though  it 
may  have  been  very  significant,  was  not  a  sign  (aijfjLelov), 
as  that  word  is  used  in  John  ;  and  to  call  it  *'  an  un- 
doubted miracle  of  divine  providence  "is  to  introduce 
obscurity  into  the  explanation. 

If,  then,  in  conclusion,  we  accept  the  narrative  as 
historical,  we  must  hold  that  power  was  given  to  Jesus 
to  change  water  into  wine,  an  act  no  more  difficult  of 
explanation  than  any  of  the  miracles,  for  the  inner 
process  is  in  every  case  alike  inexplicable. 

The  evangelist  treats  the  event  at  Cana  as  he  does 
the  other  miracles  of  Jesus.  It  is  to  him  a  sig-n,  an 
index  finger,  pointing  to  a  deep,  divine  truth.  The 
miracle  itself  is  incidental ;  the  fact  of  primary  impor- 
tance is  behind  the  miracle,  something  personal  and 
spiritual.  It  is  the  glorious  character  and  power  of  the 
Messiah.  He  appears  as  the  gracious  and  bountifuP 
helper.  Without  doubt  Jesus  regarded  the  event  as  a 
parable,  as  did  the  evangelist  in  calling  it  a  sign.  For 
Jesus  had  not  come  to  supply  the  physical  needs  of 

1  John's  estimate  of  the  amount  of  wine  is  from  108  to  162  gallons 
(John  ii.  6). 


90  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

man  by  miraculous  means,  nor  to  raise  the  dead.  He 
had  come  to  establish  the  rule  of  God  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  His  signs  were  primarily  intended  to  legiti- 
mate Him  as  God's  messenger  for  this  spiritual  work. 

In  Capernaum. 

From  Cana  Jesus  went  down  to  Capernaum,  some 
eighteen  miles  away.  This  town  was  on  the  northwest 
shore  of  Lake  Galilee,  and  probably  on  the  great  road 
from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus  ;  but  no  discovery  has 
yet  certainly  fixed  its  exact  site,  though  it  is  to  be 
found  either  at  Khan  Minyeh,  toward  the  southern  end 
of  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  or,  more  probably,  at  Tell 
Hum,  at  the  north  end  of  the  plain. ^ 

It  is  natural  to  think  that  Jesus  went  to  Capernaum 
because  several  of  His  disciples  lived  there.  This  was 
the  home  of  John  and  James  (Mark  i.  19,  20),  and  prob- 
ably also  of  Peter  and  Andrew.  We  know  that  Peter 
had  a  home  in  Capernaum  a  few  months  later  than  this 
(Mark  i.  29),  and  we  may  suppose  that  it  was  already 
there.  His  native  place  was  Bethsaida  (John  i.  44), 
whose  site,  save  that  it  was  in  the  plain  of  Gennesaret, 
is  unidentified  (Mark  vi.  45,  53).  The  homes  and  friends 
of  these  disciples  would  present  a  favorable  opening  for 
Jesus.  He  might  hope  to  find  other  disciples  among 
the  friends  of  those  whom  He  had  already  won. 

The  fact  that  the  mother  and  brothers  of  Jesus  went 

1  See  Badeker,  Palastina  und  Syrien,  p.  258;  Conder,  Tent  Work  in 
Palestine,  II.  182-190. 


THE  BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   MINISTRY  9 1 

with  Him  to  Capernaum  may  be  regarded  as  a  conse- 
quence of  His  miracle  in  Cana  (John  ii.  12).  They 
were  impressed  by  this,  and  wished  to  be  near  Him. 
However,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  continued  with 
Him  long,  for  early  in  the  Galilean  ministry,  Mark 
tells  us  that  they  came  forth.,  i.e.  from  Nazareth,  or 
Cana,  to  lay  hold  on  Him,  thinking  that  He  was  out 
of  His  mind  (Mark  iii.  21,  31).  We  may  suppose  that 
they  went  up  to  the  feast  with  Him,  and  then,  when 
He  retired  into  Judea  without  setting  up  the  Messianic 
standard,  they  returned,  disappointed,  to  their  home  in 
Galilee. 

Jesus  did  not  remain  long  in  Capernaum,  perhaps  a 
week  or  two  (John  ii.  12).  There  is  no  evidence  that 
He  taught  publicly  or  worked  miracles ;  we  may  per- 
haps think  of  Him  as  remaining  quietly  in  the  homes 
of  His  disciples,  attaching  them  more  and  more  closely 
to  Himself,  and  awaiting  from  His  Father  a  signal 
for   the  next  step. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Early  Judean  Ministry 

The  Data. 

It  is  from  the  fourth  Gospel  alone  that  we  learn  of  an 
early  ministry  in  Jerusalem  and  Judea  (John  ii.  13-iv. 
3).  There  is  no  trace  of  it  in  the  Synoptists.  Accord- 
ing to  Luke  there  is  no  place  for  it.  After  saying  that 
the  devil  left  Jesus  for  a  season,  he  continues,  ''And 
Jesus  returned  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into  Galilee  " 
(Luke  iv.  13,  14).  Evidently,  in  his  thought,  Jesus 
went  from  the  wilderness  directly  to  Galilee  and  at 
once  began  His  great  work  there.  Yet  in  Mark  and 
Matthew  there  is  a  break  between  the  wilderness  and 
the  beginning  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  The  text  is 
not  consecutive.  Mark  follows  the  temptation  with 
the  words,  *'  Now  after  John  was  imprisoned  Jesus  came 
into  Galilee"  (Mark  i.  13,  14);  and  Matthew  says, 
''  Having  heard  that  John  had  been  delivered  up,  he 
withdrew  into  Galilee"  (Matt.  iv.  12).  But  it  is  not 
likely  that  these  evangelists  thought  of  Jesus  as  having 
heard  of  John's  imprisonment  zvhile  He  was  still  in  the 
wilderness.  Thus  their  narrative  implies  an  interval 
between  the  temptation  and  the  beginning  of  public 
work  in  Galilee. 

92 


THE   EARLY  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  93 

One  cannot  say  why  the  Synoptists  thus  omit  the 
early  Judean  ministry,  but  it  is  no  more  strange  than 
their  omission  of  all  subsequent  visits  to  Jerusalem  and 
Judea  prior  to  the  last  Passover.  The  fact  that  no  one 
of  the  Synoptists  has  any  trace  of  the  early  ministry 
in  Judea  seems  to  indicate  that  there  was  no  tradition 
of  this  period  current  in  the  Church  when  they  wrote. 

The  First  Public  Act. 

During  the  few  weeks  since  Jesus  left  the  Jordan 
with  His  first  disciples  He  seems  not  to  have  worked 
or  preached  openly.  The  one  sign  which  He  had 
wrought  had  been  in  a  private  house.  It  was  fitting 
that  His  first  public  act  should  be  in  Jerusalem  and 
in  the  temple,  for  this  was  the  centre  of  the  national 
and  religious  life  —  fitting,  though  probably  not  planned 
by  Him,  for  He  seems  to  have  had  no  plan,  unless  we 
so  designate  His  purpose  to  do  the  Messianic  work  as 
it  should  be  made  known  to  Him  by  God  day  by  day. 
This  centre,  however,  was  defiled  both  by  traffic  and 
by  the  gross  deceit  of  the  traffickers  (John  ii.  14-16; 
Matt.  xxi.  13).  The  act  of  Jesus  in  putting  away  this 
profanation  from  the  temple  has  various  aspects  which 
are  here  to  be  noticed. 

And  first,  the  act  itself  was  not  a  miracle,  did  not 
transcend  human  power.  We  can  think  of  an  Elijah 
or  an  Isaiah  as  accomplishing  it  in  his  zeal  for  Jehovah. 
Jesus  knew  that  He  was  right  in  driving  the  traders  out, 
and  therefore  knew  that  God  was  with    Him.     Those 


94  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

who  were  defiling  the  sacred  place  may  well  have  had 
in  their  secret  heart  some  sense  of  wrong-doing,  and 
this  would  naturally  be  strengthened  by  the  outflashing 
of  Christ's  righteous  indignation,  and  by  His  scriptural 
condemnation  of  their  doings.  So  they  quailed  before 
the  pure  and  majestic  presence  of  Jesus,  as  did  the 
noisy  mourners  in  the  house  of  Jairus  at  a  later  day 
(Mark  v.  40). 

Second,  the  act  of  Jesus  was  in  its  nature  reforma- 
tory rather  than  Messianic.  There  is  no  suggestion 
that  His  disciples  regarded  it  as  indicating  a  claim  to 
Messianic  authority.  As  they  reflected  upon  it,  they 
saw  in  it  a  fulfilment  of  Psalm  Ixix.  9,  ''The  zeal  of 
thine  house  shall  eat  me  up  "  (John  ii.  17),  a  passage 
suggested  by  the  intense  moral  earnestness  of  Jesus. 
They  did  not  see  in  it  a  fulfilment  of  Malachi's  words, 
"The  Lord  whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly  come  to  His 
temple  "  (Mai,  iii.  i).  Further,  there  is  no  indication  that 
any  one  outside  the  circle  of  disciples  regarded  the  act 
as  Messianic.  All  that  the  more  thoughtful  ones  saw 
in  this,  or  in  the  signs  which  Jesus  did  in  the  next 
days,  was  an  evidence  that  He  had  come  from  God 
as  a  teacher  (John  iii.  2).  The  cleansing  of  the  temple, 
then,  was  simply  reformatory,  and  as  such  was  in  line 
with  Christ's  subsequent  protests  against  the  evil  prac- 
tices of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  {e.g.  Matt,  xxiii; 
Mark  ii.  23-28).  Hence  the  act  was  not  typical  of  the 
work  of  Jesus  as  a  whole.  For  His  work  was  positive 
in  character  rather  than  negative ;  not  the  removal  of 


THE   EARLY   JUDEAN   MINISTRY  95 

abuses,  primarily,   but   the   establishment   of   a   divine 
kingdom. 

We  may  suppose  that  the  purpose  of  God  in  the 
cleansing  of  the  temple  was  to  call  general  attention 
to  Jesus,  and  to  establish  His  right  to  be  heard  as  a 
prophet  sent  from  heaven. 

The  Challenge  of  the  Jews. 

The  officials  ^  came  to  Jesus  after  He  had  cleansed 
the  temple  and  demanded  a  sign  in  justification  of  His 
bold  act  (John  ii.  18).  The  fact  that  they  did  not  lay 
violent  hands  upon  Him  may  indicate  that  there  was  a 
manifest  popular  sympathy  with  the  act  of  Jesus. 

Jesus  replied  to  their  demand  for  a  sign  with  a  say- 
ing which  neither  they  nor  His  own  disciples  under- 
stood at  the  time  (John  ii.  19).  "  Destroy  this  temple," 
He  said,  "and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  The 
officials  thought  that  He  referred  to  the  great  temple 
in  which  they  were  gathered,  and  that  seems  to  have 
been  the  idea  which  people  in  general  came  to  hold. 
Two  years  later,  when  Jesus  was  on  trial,  false  wit- 
nesses testified  that  He  had  said,  "  I  am  able  to  destroy 
the  temple  of  God  and  to  build  it  in  three  days,"  or,  "  I 
will  destroy  this  temple  made  with  hands  and  in  three 

1  The  fourth  Gospel  frequently  uses  the  term  the  Jews  in  a  narrow 
sense,  to  denote  those  Jews  who  were  hostile  toward  Jesus,  and  hence, 
especially,  the  religious  leaders.  Comp.  John  ix.  22;  xi.  8,  31,  '^,2^,  54; 
xiii.  33.  This  usage  was  natural  at  a  time  long  subsequent  to  the  final 
separation  of  Christianity  from  Judaism. 


96  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

days  I  will  build  another  not  made  with  hands."  The 
evangelists  say  that  this  was  false  witness,  but  do  not 
indicate  wherein  it  was  false.  According  to  Mark  the 
witnesses  said  that  Jesus  spoke  of  a  wondrous  new 
temple,  not  made  with  hands,  though  He  also  said  that 
He  would  destroy  the  material  temple;  but  according 
to  Matthew's  version  of  the  false  testimony  the  stress 
falls  upon  the  power  which  Jesus  claimed.  In  both 
cases,  however,  He  is  thought  to  have  made  a  reference 
of  some  kind  to  the  material  temple.^ 

Thus  the  Synoptists  contain  varied  evidence  that  the 
saying  of  Jesus  was  popularly  understood  as  referring 
to  the  temple  of  stone  which  He  had  cleansed. 

But  it  was  differently  understood  by  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.  He  says  that  Jesus  spake  of  the 
temple  of  His  body  (John  ii.  21).  This  meaning,  how- 
ever, was  not  given  to  the  word  of  Jesus  until  after  His 
resurrection  (John  ii.  22)  —  an  evidence  that  it  was  a 
dark  saying  to  the  disciples  no  less  than  to  others  who 
heard  it  (Matt.  xxvi.  60,  61  ;  Mark  xiv.  57,  58).  When 
Christ  was  on  the  cross,  men  said  to  Him  in  mockery, 
"  Ha,  thou  that  destroyest  the  temple  and  buildest  it 
in  three  days  "  (Mark  xv.  29 ;  Matt,  xxvii.  40). 

Such  being  the  data,  it  is  manifestly  difficult  to  hold 
that  either  the  earlier  or  the  later  view  of  Christ's  word 
is  demonstrably  the  right  one.  The  text,  if  it  identifies 
the  temple  that  is  destroyed  with  that  which  is  to 
be  built,  plainly   supports   John's   interpretation ;    but 

1  Comp.  Acts  vi.  13,  14. 


THE   EARLY   JUDEAN   MINISTRY  97 

such  identification  appears  doubtful  in  view  of  Mark 
viii.  35.  A  serious  objection  to  the  view  that  Jesus 
alluded  at  this  time  to  His  death  and  resurrection  is 
the  fact  that  nothing  in  the  situation  suggested  such 
an  allusion,  while  the  situation  did  suggest  a  reference 
to  the  destruction  of  the  temple  of  God.  The  Jews  had 
profaned  the  sanctuary  by  making  it  a  house  of  mer- 
chandise (John  ii.  16).  They  had  indeed  gone  far 
toward  its  destruction  as  a  place  of  worship.  Jesus 
said  that  the  sign  of  His  authority  to  cleanse  the  temple 
as  He  had  just  done,  would  be  His  reconstruction  of  it, 
when  destroyed.  It  is  obvious  that  He  could  not  have 
meant  a  rebuilding  of  the  temple  of  stone,  for  His  mis- 
sion was  to  establish  a  spiritual  kingdom  and  a  spirit- 
ual worship ;  but  He  could  promise  to  rebuild  the 
temple,  meaning  thereby  that  the  great  truths  for  which 
the  temple  stood  were  to  have  their  true  and  final  realiz- 
ation through  Him  (Matt.  xii.  6;  John  iv.  21).^  This 
work,  then,  which  He  was  yet  to  do  would  be  a  justi- 
fication of  His  recent  act  in  cleansing  the  temple. 

Signs  in  Jerusalem. 

The  opposition  created  by  Jesus'  bold  deed  in  the 
temple  does  not  appear  to  have  led  to  an  immediate 
departure.  He  remained  long  enough  to  create  a  fa- 
vorable impression  even  upon  certain  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin.     He  is  said  to  have  wrought  signs,  but  we 

1  Comp.  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  i.  394  ;  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu, 
II.  148. 


98  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

are  not  told  what  (John  ii.  23).  It  is  explicitly  stated 
that  these  signs  were  wrought  "during  the  feast,"  and 
this  suggests  that  Jesus  did  not  prolong  His  ministry 
in  Jerusalem  much,  if  any,  beyond  the  close  of  the 
eight  days  of  the  feast.  The  probable  reason  of  this 
lies  in  the  fact  that,  while  the  signs  of  Jesus  made  a 
deep  impression.  His  teaching  did  not  reach  the  hearts 
of  the  people.  In  Jerusalem,  more  than  elsewhere, 
men  were  under  the  dominion  of  the  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees, and  there  was  less  receptivity  for  spiritual  truths. 
A  deep-seated  hatred  toward  Jesus  had  been  created 
in  the  hearts  of  the  leaders  by  the  cleansing  of 
the  temple,  and  their  sentiment  was  so  positive  and 
well  known  that  Nicodemus,  one  of  their  number 
(John  iii.  i),  dared  not  visit  Jesus  openly,  but  came  by 
night  (John  iii.  2). 

The  Nicodemus  Incident. 

This  Nicodemus  was  one  of  the  few  men  in  whom 
the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  had  awakened  a  desire 
to  know  more  about  Him.  He  was  not  wholly  alone  in 
recognizing  Jesus  as  a  divinely-sent  teacher,  for  he  says 
''  We  know,"  which  implies  that  there  were  others  who 
had  at  least  a  deep  respect  for  Jesus.  The  conversa- 
tion with  Nicodemus  is  important  in  several  particulars 
for  the  biography  of  Jesus.  And  first,  it  shows  that 
Jesus,  at  the  very  beginning  of  His  ministry,  took  a 
radical,  spiritual  view  of  the  way  in  which  men  could 
enter  the  Kingdom  of  God.     This  is  in  accord  with  the 


THE   EARLY   JUDEAN   MINISTRY  99 

view  of  that  Kingdom  which  He  reached  in  the  wilder- 
ness. Of  descent  from  Abraham  and  observance  of 
the  law  He  takes  no  account,  but  only  of  a  certain  atti- 
tude of  the  spirit,  which  viewed  from  one  aspect,  is  a 
putting  away  of  sin,  and  from  another,  is  consecration 
to  God  (John  iii.  5).^ 

Again,  this  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  like  the 
earliest  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptists,  shows  that 
from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry  He  felt  that  His 
mission  was  to  reveal  the  love  of  God  (John  iii.  16). 
Therefore  He  could  not  meet  the  expectation  of  the 
people,  shared  even  by  the  Baptist  (Matt.  iii.  11,  12), 
that  the  Messiah  y^ovXdi  judge  the  world  immediately 
after  His  appearance.^  Judgment  would  not  have  mani- 
fested the  love  of  God  for  sinners,  and  had  Jesus  insti- 
tuted a  judgment,  He  could  not  have  saved  that  which 
was  lost.  Finally,  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus, 
if  we  assume  a  historical  basis,  shows  that  there  was, 
at  least  on  some  occasions,  an  element  of  personal  dis- 
closure even  at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
Nicodemus  came  to  Jesus  with  a  query  in  his  heart 
whether  this  teacher  might  not  be  the  Messiah,  and  the 
narrative  of  John  certainly  implies  that  Jesus  spoke 
to  Nicodemus  words  which  would  help  him  to  answer 
the  query  for  himself  {^e.g.  John  iii.  13-15).  Other 
incidents  from  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
which  are  recorded  by  John,  support  the  view  that  in 

^  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  pp.  84-87. 
2  Weber,  Jiidische  Theologie,  pp.  364-371. 


ICMD  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

His  thought  Jesus  virtually  answered  the  query  of  Nico- 
demus  and  answered  it  in  the  affirmative.  Thus  he 
represents  Andrew  as  telling  Simon  that  he  had  found 
the  Messiah  (John  i.  41).  The  next  day  Philip  bears 
the  same  witness  regarding  Jesus  (John  i.  45),  and 
Nathanael  addresses  Him  as  King  of  Israel  (John  i.  49). 
These  events  imply  that  Jesus  gave  assurance  of  His 
Messiahship  to  Andrew  and  the  rest.  They  did  not 
believe  on  the  strength  of  the  Baptist's  testimony,  but 
on  the  basis  of  their  own  intercourse  with  Jesus.  This 
intercourse,  however,  could  hardly  have  convinced  them 
unless  Jesus  practically  told  them  that  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah, as  He  later  told  the  woman  of  Samaria  (John 
iv.  26). 

Now  this  representation  of  the  fourth  Gospel  seems 
to  be  widely  different  from  that  of  the  Synoptists. 
According  to  this,  Jesus  studiously  avoided  Messianic 
claims  (Mark  i.  34;  iii.  12;  v.  40).  Not  until  the  last 
week  of  the  ministry  did  He  make  an  explicit  public 
claim  to  be  the  Messiah  (Mark  xiv.  62).  Two  facts  con- 
cerning this  difference  between  John  and  the  Synoptists 
should  not  be  overlooked.  The  personal  disclosure  in 
John  is  to  individuals  who  are  seeking  the  Messiah;  the 
reticence  of  Jesus  which  the  Synoptists  affirm  is  mani- 
fest on  public  occasions,  before  mixed  audiences.  Then, 
in  the  Synoptists  no  less  than  in  John,  Jesus  lives  and 
acts  like  the  Messiah,  though  making  no  explicit  Mes- 
sianic claim.  The  claim  is  implied  both  in  private  and 
in  public. 


THE   EARLY  JUDEAN   MINISTRY  lOI 

The  Synoptic  representation  of  the  matter  is  in  gen- 
eral the  historical  one.  When  the  Baptist  sent  mes- 
sengers to  Jesus  for  an  answer  to  the  question  whether 
He  was  the  Messiah,  Jesus  simply  pointed  them  to 
what  He  was  doing  (Matt.  xi.  4,  5).  John  must  draw 
his  own  inference.  And  this  was  typical  of  the  method 
of  Jesus  throughout  His  ministry,  and  in  keeping  with 
His  spiritual  conception  of  the  Messianic  office.  He 
sought  no  recognition  on  the  mere  ground  of  verbal 
claims.  He  sought  rather  so  to  act  and  to  speak  that 
men  should  be  constrained  to  confess  Him  the  Messiah. 
But  it  is  at  the  same  time  credible  that  there  were  such 
partial  exceptions  to  this  rule  as  are  recorded  in  John  — 
partial,  for  even  in  John,  Jesus  is  never  represented  as 
approaching  any  one  with  the  bald  claim  of  Messiah- 
ship.  There  is  always  some  significant  intercourse 
before  the  claim,  and  of  which  the  claim  is  hardly  more 
than  the  natural  culmination. 

Work  of  Preparation. 

The  short  period  of  work  in  Jerusalem,  in  which  for 
the  most  part  only  a  superficial  impression  was  made 
(John  ii.  23-25),  was  followed  by  a  long  period  of  activ- 
ity in  Judea,  of  which  we  have  but  a  meagre  account. 
This  period  continued  about  eight  months,  as  has 
already  been  shown.  Of  the  place  or  places  where 
Jesus  tarried  during  these  months,  we  have  no  certain 
knowledge.  We  only  know  that  He  was  in  Judea. 
John   was    still   baptizing,    now  at   ^non   near   Salim 


I02  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

(John  iii.  23),  but  it  is  not  known  where  ^non  was, 
though  the  language  of  John  iii.  26,  when  taken  in  con- 
nection with  John  i.  28,  shows  that  the  author  put  it  on 
the  west  of  the  Jordan.  It  is  probable  that  it  was  in  or 
near  the  territory  of  Herod  Antipas,  for  he  arrested 
John  soon  after  the  close  of  this  period  of  eight  months, 
and  the  jurisdiction  of  Antipas  was  over  Gahlee  and 
Perea,  not  over  Judea.  If,  then,  the  Baptist  was  near 
the  border  of  Herod's  domain,  it  is  probable  that  Jesus 
was  not  far  away  (John  iii.  25).  Of  the  period  spent  in 
the  vicinity  of  John  we  know  only  that  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  baptized,  and  that  many  came  to  their  baptism 
(John  iii.  22 ;  iv.  i,  2). 

The  narrative  in  John  impHes  that  baptism  by  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  was  not  different  from  John's  bap- 
tism. It  was,  accordingly,  a  baptism  of  repentance 
unto  remission  of  sins.  It  was  not  that  baptism  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  which,  according  to  John,  was  to  char- 
acterize the  ministry  of  the  Messiah  (Mark  i.  8 ;  Matt, 
iii.  II).  It  is  manifest  that  Jesus  must  be  recognized 
as  the  Messiah  before  this  baptism  by  Him  or  His  rep- 
resentatives would  be  possible. 

If,  now,  the  baptism  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus  per- 
formed under  His  direction  was  the  same  as  John's 
baptism,  we  must  regard  the  work  of  Jesus  at  this  time 
as  virtually  a  work  of  preparation.  He  was  making 
straight  His  own  paths  (Mark  i.  3),  a  work  which  His 
recent  experience  in  Jerusalem  had  shown  Him  was 
needed. 


IIIE  EARLY  JUDEAN   MINISTRY  103 

The  effect  of  this  preparatory  work,  if  we  may  judge 
from  the  numbers  who  came  to  His  baptism,  was  very 
great.  The  movement  of  people  to  Him  became 
greater  than  that  to  John  (John  iii.  26;  iv.  i).  What 
the  real  spiritual  result  of  the  work  was  cannot  be  said. 
The  language  of  Jesus'  brothers  just  before  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  suggests  that,  in  their  thought,  most  of 
His  disciples,  or  those  of  most  importance,  were  in 
Judea  (John  vii.  3).  If  this  was  even  approximately 
true,  then  it  implies  that  the  early  Judean  work  had 
been  fruitful,  for  since  that  time  Jesus  had  not  labored 
in  the  land  of  Judea,  and  had  made  but  one  brief  visit 
in  Jerusalem. 

Just  what  part  Jesus  took  in  this  work  does  not  ap- 
pear. It  is  certain  that  He  did  not  personally  admin- 
ister baptism.  Had  He  done  so,  it  might  have  given 
the  impression  that  He  regarded  Himself  as  a  second 
John  the  Baptist.  Of  signs  such  as  marked  His  Gali- 
lean ministry  from  its  beginning  there  is  no  trace. 

It  is  significant  that  Jesus,  even  after  His  baptism 
by  the  Spirit  for  Messianic  work,  had  this  time  of 
waiting.  Its  cause  can  only  be  conjectured.  Accord- 
ing to  Mark  and  Matthew,  the  imprisonment  of  the 
Baptist  seemed  to  be  a  signal  to  Jesus  that  His  hour  had 
come  (Mark  i.  14;  Matt.  iv.  12),  and  the  statement 
of  John,  that  Jesus  left  Judea  because  of  the  Pharisees 
(John  iv.  i),  does  not  necessarily  lessen  the  significance 
of  the  Synoptic  representation.  But  why  Jesus  should 
wait  until  the  Baptist's  work  was  done  is  not  indicated. 


CHAPTER     IX 
Two  Days  in  Sychar 

Departure  from  Judea. 

According  to  John  iv.  i,  Jesus  left  Judea  because  the 
Pharisees  were  taking  cognizance  of  His  work.  They 
had  heard  that  He  was  more  successful  than  the  Baptist. 
It  seems  probable  that  Jesus  apprehended  hostility  from 
the  Pharisees,  and  so  thought  best  to  change  the  scene 
of  His  work.  When  He  left  Judea,  the  Baptist  was  still 
at  liberty  (John  iv.  i);  and  therefore,  with  the  Synoptists 
before  us,  we  are  led  to  think  that  Jesus,  on  leaving 
Judea,  had  not  yet  the  purpose  to  enter  upon  Messianic 
work  in  Galilee.  For,  according  to  the  Synoptists, 
the  signal  for  the  beginning  of  that  work  was  the 
imprisonment  of  the  Baptist.  We  hold  therefore  that 
Jesus  left  Judea  and  turned  His  face  northward,  still 
awaiting  from  His  Father  a  sign  that  the  time  had  come 
for  Him  to  enter  upon  a  new  phase  of  his  career.  This 
sign  came  very  soon ;  the  Baptist  was  seized  by  Herod 
and  imprisoned  (Mark  vi.  17).  The  place  of  imprison- 
ment and  execution,  according  to  Josephus,^  was  the 
fortress  of  Machaerus  at  the  northeast  of  the  Dead  Sea.^ 

1  Antiquities,  xviii.  5.  2. 

2  Badeker,  Palastina  und  Syrien,  p.  192. 

104 


TWO  DAYS   IN    SYCHAR  I05 

John  does  not  give  any  direct  intimation  regarding  the 
time  of  the  Baptist's  arrest,  yet  his  narrative  implies 
that  it  was  soon  after  the  departure  of  Jesus.  For  when 
Jesus  was  again  in  Jerusalem,  about  three  months  after 
leaving  Judea,  He  referred  to  the  Baptist  as  one  who 
belonged  to  the  past  (John  v.  35).  We  may  assume 
therefore  that  the  Baptist  was  arrested  and  that  Jesus 
heard  of  his  arrest  either  while  He  was  on  His  way 
to  Galilee,  which  is  favored  by  the  language  of  Matt. 
iv.  12,  or  soon  after  His  arrival  there.  The  Synoptists 
assume  that  the  work  of  the  Baptist  was  ended  before 
the  Galilean  work  of  Jesus  began,  and  the  narrative  of 
John  does  not  oppose  this  view. 

At  Jacob's  Well. 

Jesus  left  Judea  by  a  road  which  led  through  Samaria, 
just  as  in  the  following  year,  when  He  was  leaving  Gali- 
lee, He  took  a  Samaritan  road  (Luke  ix.  52).  He  did 
not  share  the  Jewish  prejudice  against  the  Samaritans, 
and,  according  to  Josephus,^  the  Galileans  as  a  rule 
were  so  free  from  this  prejudice  that  they  travelled 
through  Samaria  without  scruples.  About  noon  He 
reached  Jacob's  well,  probably  the  same  that  has  borne 
that  name  since  the  fourth  century.^  It  is  located  near 
the  foot  of  Mt.  Gerizim,  on  its  northeast  side,  on  the 
main  highway  from  Jerusalem  to  Samaria.  The  neigh- 
boring town  of  Sychar,  to  which  the  disciples  went  to 

1  Antiquities,  xx.  6.  I. 

2  Badeker,  Pal'dstina  und  Syrien,  p.  218. 


I06  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

buy  food  (John  iv.  8),  is  now  believed  to  have  occupied 
the  site  of  the  modern  'Asker,  twenty-five  minutes'  walk 
southeast  from  Nablous.  'Asker  is  about  three-quarters 
of  a  mile  from  the  well.  It  appears  that  Jesus  did  not 
expect  to  stop  in  Samaria,  for  He  did  not  turn  aside 
from  the  highway  to  the  town,  but  sent  His  disciples 
to  procure  food.  So  the  welcome  which  He  received 
from  the  Samaritans  was  wholly  a  providential  surprise. 
The  conversation  with  the  Samaritan  woman  has  a 
varied  interest  for  the  life  of  Jesus.  First,  it  shows  that 
Jesus,  unlike  the  religious  teachers  of  the  time,  was 
free  from  prejudice  against  Samaritans  and  women. 
While  the  Pharisees  thought  that  all  Samaritans  were 
possessed  by  demons  (John  viii.  48),  for  they  had 
Gentile  blood  in  their  veins,^  Jesus  mingled  freely  with 
them  ;  and  while  His  own  disciples  marvelled  that  He 
spoke  with  a  woman  (John  iv.  27),  He  seems  to  have 
done  so  without  the  slightest  scruple.  He  not  only 
mingled  with  Samaritans,  but  when  He  wished  to  teach 
the  duty  of  neighborliness,  He  chose  a  Samaritan  to 
illustrate  this  virtue  (Luke  x.  33).  His  disciples  mar- 
velled that  He  talked  with  a  woman  in  public  because 
they  had  been  taught  that  such  an  act  was  unbecoming 
to  a  rabbi,  if  not  to  any  respectable  man.  The  rabbis 
held  that  a  man  should  not  talk  with  a  woman  in  the 
street,  not  even  with  his   own  wife.^      But  Jesus  was 

1  Schurer,  Geschichte  des  jtidischen  Volkes,  II.  14,  15. 

2  Lightfoot,  HorcE  Hebraicce,  III.    287  ;    Wiinsche,  Erldxiterung  der 
Evangelien  aus  Talmud  und  Midrasch,  p.  515. 


TWO   DAYS   IN   SYCHAR  10/ 

free  from  the  influence  of  the  scribes,  and  ranked 
womanhood  as  high  as  manhood.  In  offering  His 
salvation,  He  made  no  distinction  between  male  and 
female.  According  to  John,  His  earliest  notable  dis- 
closure regarding  Himself  was  made  to  a  woman. 
Women  accompanied  Him  when  He  finally  left  Gahlee, 
and  He  allowed  them  to  minister  unto  Him  (Matt,  xxvii. 
55).  His  first  two  appearances  after  He  rose  from  the 
dead  were  to  women  (Matt,  xxviii.  9;  John  xx.  16). 
Thus  His  treatment  of  woman  laid  the  foundation  for 
the  full  recognition  and  development  of  womanhood 
among  His  disciples.  Again,  the  conversation  with  the 
woman,  as  also  the  account  of  the  sojourn  in  Sychar, 
shows  that  Jesus  wrought  no  miracle  where  He  could 
lead  souls  to  God  by  His  word.  Here  in  Samaria  He 
had  greater  success  than  previously,  and  yet  He  wrought 
no  sign. 

The  conversation  with  the  woman  at  the  well,  like 
the  earlier  experience  at  the  Jordan,  also  shows  that 
supernatural  knowledge  was  granted  to  Jesus  for  the 
needs  of  His  Messianic  work.  For,  although  He  may 
have  read  in  the  woman's  face  the  fact  that  she  had 
lived  a  dissolute  life,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  He  read 
there  the  fact  of  her  having  been  married  exactly  j^^;^ 
times,  and  that  she  was  now  living  in  unlawful  relation 
with  a  man.  He  knew  these  things  only  by  the  gift 
of  God  at  the  moment.  Once  more,  this  conversation 
with  the  Samaritan  woman  shows  that  Jesus  anticipated 
the  doing  away  of  the  old  economy  by  means  of  His 


I08  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

teaching  and  work.  He  declared  the  approach  of  an 
hour  when  worship  of  the  Father  would  not  be  bound, 
for  the  Samaritans,  to  Gerizim,  nor  for  the  Jews,  to 
Jerusalem  (John  iv.  21).  The  coming  of  such  an  hour 
would  necessarily  bring  the  abrogation  of  the  priest- 
hood and  of  sacrifices,  i.e.,  the  abrogation  of  the  entire 
old  dispensation.  This  thought  is  contained  implicitly 
in  the  Synoptic  word  of  Jesus,  that  He  came  to  fulfil  the 
law  (Matt.  V.  17).  For  since  His  fulfilment  of  the 
spiritual  teaching  of  the  law  by  a  living  embodiment 
of  the  ideal  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  was  vastly 
more  vital  and  forcible  than  the  ceremonial  fulfilment, 
to  which  Jews  had  hitherto  been  bound,  it  was  sure  to 
take  precedence  of  that  formal  fulfilment  in  a  church 
that  was  taught  by  His  Spirit.  This  was  Jesus'  method 
of  emancipating  His  disciples  from  the  law.  It  is  the 
method  of  life,  not  of  outward  statute.  The  force  of 
His  life  was  to  bring  a  gradual  and  natural  deliverance 
from  the  law,  as  the  pressure  of  life  in  the  branches 
and  twigs  of  trees  in  the  spring  pushes  off  the  old 
leaves,  whose  mission  is  ended.  Finally,  this  con- 
versation, like  that  with  Nicodemus,  indicates  that 
Jesus  from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  when  the 
occasion  was  fitting,  gave  explicit  assurance  of  His 
Messiahship  (John  iv.  26).  Here  among  the  Samar- 
itans, He  might  the  more  freely  do  so  because  the 
Samaritan  conception  of  the  Messiah  seems  not  to  have 
been  political^  (John  iv.   25),  as  was  the  Jewish,  and 

^  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  II.  522. 


TWO   DAYS   IN   SYCHAR  IO9 

the  Samaritans  were  entirely  isolated  from  the  Jews,  so 
that  His  announcement  of  Himself  among  them  would 
have  no  influence  upon  His  further  work  among  the  Jews. 

In  Sychar, 

The  sojourn  in  'Asker  was  a  time  of  seed-sowing  and 
also  of  harvest.  The  villagers  who  had  confidence 
enough  in  the  woman's  word  to  go  forth  where  Jesus 
was,  besought  Him  to  abide  with  them.  They  must 
have  recognized  Him  to  be  a  Jew,  as  the  woman  had 
done  (John  iv.  9),  but  their  regard  for  the  prophet  was 
stronger  than  their  prejudice  against  the  Jew.  Many 
heard  His  word  and  believed  that  he  was  the  Messiah. 
As  He  had  revealed  Himself  to  the  Samaritan  woman, 
so  we  must  suppose  that  He  did  to  those  villagers  who 
were  drawn  to  Him.  He  trusted  Himself  to  these  half- 
Gentiles  as  He  had  refused  to  trust  Himself  to  the 
Jews  of  Jerusalem  a  few  months  before  (John  ii.  24). 
Yet  it  was  not  God's  purpose  that  Jesus  should  prose- 
cute this  Samaritan  mission.  After  two  days  He  con- 
tinued His  journey  into  Galilee  (John  iv.  43),  and  did 
not  again  in  person  preach  the  kingdom  to  Samaritan 
hearers.  When  He  sent  out  His  disciples  on  their  first 
mission,  He  forbade  their  entering  Samaria  (Matt.  x.  5). 
Their  work  was  at  home,  as  was  His ;  the  children  must 
first  be  fed.  When  that  had  at  last  been  done,  and  the 
Gospel  was  sent  freely  to  Samaritan  and  Gentile,  it  is 
recorded  that  the  Samaritans  received  it  with  marked 
readiness  of  mind  (Acts  viii.  6,  8,  25). 


CHAPTER  X 

The  Early  Galilean  Ministry 

Ge7teral  View. 

The  early  Galilean  ministry  extended  from  the  arrest 
of  the  Baptist  to  the  feast  of  Purim  in  the  middle  of 
the  following  March.  With  this  ministry,  with  which 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  begin,  Jesus  entered  on  continuous 
pubhc  Messianic  work.  The  baptism  of  preparation 
which  His  disciples  had  been  administering  in  Judea 
was  dropped,  never  to  be  resumed.  Instead  of  isolated 
miracles,  as  in  the  previous  eight  months,  the  early 
Galilean  ministry  was  rich  in  them.  Now  for  the  first 
time  Jesus  appeared  in  the  synagogue,  and  later  in  the 
midst  of  great  throngs  in  the  open  country,  as  a  teacher 
and  preacher  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  He  made  His 
headquarters  in  the  most  thickly  settled  portion  of  Gali- 
lee, in  the  town  of  Capernaum,  From  this  centre  He 
made  several  tours  throughout  the  province,  and  once 
at  least  appeared  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  lake.  In 
this  period  He  formed  a  circle  of  disciples,  twelve  of 
whom,  at  its  close.  He  sent  forth  to  announce  Him  far 
and  near  through  the  province.  We  cannot  follow 
Jesus  from  day  to  day,  or  even  from  week  to  week, 
through  this  Galilean  ministry,  nor  indeed  through  any 


THE   EARLY  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  HI 

period  of  His  life.  Minute  data  of  time  and  place  are 
usually  wanting.  The  Synoptists  simply  present  to  us 
certain  great  features  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  salient 
facts  which  were  supposed  adequately  to  represent  the 
work  of  Jesus,  and  with  these  we  must  be  satisfied, 

hi  Cana  a  Second  Time. 

Leaving  Sychar  in  Samaria,  Jesus  went  north  into 
Galilee  and  came  to  the  Cana  which  He  had  visited 
eight  months  before  (John  iv.  46).  His  fame  had  pre- 
ceded Him,  and  the  Galileans  who  had  seen  what  He 
did  in  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover  welcomed  Him  now 
as  He  appeared  in  His  own  province  (John  iv.  45).^  By 
the  time  that  He  reached  Cana,  the  report  of  His  return 
had  travelled  to  Capernaum,  and  had  brought  thence 
to  Cana  a  man  who  sought  the  help  of  Jesus.  This 
was  an  officer  of  a  king  (/^acriXt/co?),  presumably  of 
Herod  Antipas,  and  is  treated  by  Jesus  as  a  Jew 
(John  iv.  48).  The  man  sought  healing  for  his  son,  and 
would  have  Jesus  come  at  once  to  Capernaum.  Met 
thus  on  His  return  to  GaHlee  by  the  request  for  a  mira- 
cle of  healing,  and  welcomed  by  people  because  of  His 
signs  in  Jerusalem,  Jesus  uttered  a  word  of  rebuke  for 
the  Jews  in  general,  because  they  relied  upon  signs  and 
wonders  (John  iv.  48).     When  Jesus  saw  that  the  noble- 

1  One  objection  to  the  view  that  Jesus  went  at  once  to  Nazareth  on  His 
return  to  Galilee  is  the  fact  that  the  people  of  Nazareth  did  not  receive 
Him  (Luke  iv.  16-30).  We  must  follow  Mark  and  put  the  visit  to  Naza- 
reth much  later. 


112  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

man  had  faith  that  He  could  heal,  He  sent  hhn  home 
with  the  assurance  that  his  request  was  granted  (John 
iv.  50).  On  his  way  to  Capernaum  he  was  met  by  his 
servants,  who  told  him  that  his  son  began  to  improve 
about  the  seventh  hour  of  the  day  previous  (John  iv. 
52) ;  and  since  the  distance  from  Cana  to  Capernaum  is 
only  eight  hours,  it  seems  probable  that  the  servants 
did  not  start  as  soon  as  the  son's  improvement  was  no- 
ticed, for  in  that  case  they  and  the  father  would  have 
met  on  the  very  day  of  the  cure. 

The  Call  of  the  Four. 

It  seems  likely  that  Jesus  soon  left  Cana  for  Caper- 
naum. Four  of  the  men  whom  He  had  attached  to  Him- 
self by  the  Jordan,  and  to  whom,  as  He  entered  upon 
the  Galilean  ministry,  He  would  naturally  turn  for  assist- 
ance, were  in  Capernaum  at  this  time.  How  long  they 
had  been  there,  and  why  they  had  left  Judea  before 
Jesus,  are  questions  to  which  only  conjectural  answers 
can  be  given.  The  oldest  Gospel  puts  the  beginning  of 
the  second  chapter  of  their  discipleship  at  the  very  open- 
ing of  the  Galilean  ministry.  Simon  and  Andrew  were 
fishing  (Mark  i.  16),  and  James  and  John  were  mending 
their  nets  not  far  away  (Mark  i.  19).  They  apparently 
had  not  expected  Jesus  just  at  this  time,  and  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  Jesus  sought  them  out,  as  He  did  not  find 
them  in  the  village.  His  word  that  they  should  become 
fishers  of  men  through  Him  (Mark  i.  17),  while  it  presup- 
poses such  a  previous  acquaintance  as  is  reported  in  the 


THE  EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  II3 

fourth  Gospel,  indicates  also  that  the  work  of  Jesus  stood 
before  Him  at  this  time  in  clear  and  definite  outline. 

The  narrative  which  Luke  associates  with  the  call  of 
Simon  can  scarcely  be  understood  in  that  connection 
(Luke  V.  i-ii).  Jesus  is  in  the  midst  of  the  Galilean 
activity,  and  on  a  certain  occasion  uses  Simon's  boat  as 
a  convenient  seat  from  which  to  address  the  multitudes. 
At  the  close  of  His  address  He  bade  Simon  put  out  into 
the  deep  and  let  down  the  nets  for  a  draught.  The 
catch  was  so  great  that  both  Simon's  boat  and  that  of 
James  and  John,  which  was  near,  were  loaded  until 
they  began  to  sink.  Simon  was  so  deeply  impressed 
by  the  event  that,  in  his  amazement  and  conscious 
sinfulness,  he  besought  Jesus  to  depart  from  him.  The 
similarity  between  this  narrative  and  that  of  John  xxi ; 
the  fact  that  Mark,  whose  chief  source  was  Peter,  has 
no  trace  of  it;  the  fact  that  Simon  and  Andrew  and 
James  and  John  had  long  known  Jesus  and  believed 
in  Him,  and  consequently  did  not  need  a  miracle  to 
induce  them  to  follow  Him  ;  and  the  fact  that  Simon, 
conscious  of  sinfulness,  prayed  Jesus  to  depart  from 
him, —  all  these  facts  give  support  to  the  view  that 
Luke's  narrative  is  a  duplicate  version  of  the  same 
event  which  John  describes.^  The  last  point  —  Simon's 
prayer  that  Jesus  should  depart  from  him  —  would  be 
intelligible  as  part  of  a  narrative  whose  content  was 
subsequent  to  Peter's  denial  of  Jesus,  but  it  is  difficult 

1  Comp.  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  436,  437  ;    Beyschlag,  Das  Leben 
Jesu,  L  304,  305. 
I 


114  THE   STUDENTS   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

to  understand  at  the  beginning  of  the  GaHlean  ministry. 
However,  there  are  difficulties  connected  with  this 
identification,  notably  the  fact  that,  in  Luke,  Simon 
prayed  Jesus  to  depart,  while,  in  John,  he  jumped  into 
the  lake  in  his  eagerness  to  get  near  to  Jesus. 

In  the  Synagogue  in  Capernaum. 

Jesus  as  a  Teacher. 

On  the  following  Sabbath  Jesus  entered  the  syna- 
gogue in  Capernaum  and  taught  (Mark  i.  21).  The 
result  was  that  people  were  amazed  at  His  doctrine, 
especially  by  the  authority  which  characterized  Him. 
His  teaching  was  like  that  of  the  scribes  in  some 
particulars.  Thus  He  went  to  the  synagogue,  the 
place  where  they  also  taught.  When  in  Jerusalem,  it 
was  the  practice  of  Jesus  to  teach  in  the  courts  of  the 
temple  (Matt.  xxi.  23  ;  John  x.  23),  but  in  Galilee  He 
went  into  the  synagogue.  Like  the  scribes,  Jesus  also 
stood  when  reading  the  Scriptures  (Luke  iv.  16,  20), 
and  sat  when  expounding  them  (Matt.  xiii.  i  ;  xv.  29 ; 
John  vi.  3).  He  allowed  questions  to  be  asked  (Matt, 
xii.  9,  10),  and  John  describes  an  occasion  when 
a  long  dialogue  took  place  between  Him  and  those 
present  in  the  synagogue  (John  vi.  25-59).  I^^  this  too 
His  teaching  was  like  that  of  the  scribes.  But  apart 
from  these  formal  resemblances  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
was  wondrously  unlike  that  of  the  rabbis.  He  spoke 
with  authority  (Mark  i.  22). 

The  scribe  said  over  what  some  scribe  of  the  past 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  I15 

had  said.  His  teaching  was  mechanical.  The  highest 
praise  for  a  scribe  was  that  he  resembled  a  cemented 
cistern  which  lost  no  drop  of  the  water  put  into  it.  He 
was  bound  never  to  teach  otherwise  than  as  he  had 
been  taught.^  Christ  as  a  teacher  was  not  a  cistern, 
but  a  spring,  clear,  abundant,  and  perennial. 

The  form  of  Christ's  teaching,  at  least  in  Galilee,  was 
eminently  popular.  His  addresses  had  this  quality 
because,  in  the  first  place,  they  were  concrete,  never 
abstract.  He  does  not  speak  of  the  sumnmm  boniim, 
but  of  the  pearl  of  great  price.  He  does  not  speak  of 
providence,  but  says  that  the  hairs  of  our  heads  are  all 
numbered.  He  does  not  speak  of  the  divine  attribute 
of  love,  but  pictures  a  father  embracing  his  lost  son, 
and  covering  him  with  kisses.  Instead  of  speaking  of 
divine  beneficence.  He  says  that  God  sends  rain  on  the 
just  and  the  unjust.  Again,  Christ's  words  were  largely 
proverbial  in  character,  and  hence  easily  remembered. 
He  did  not  formally  develop  the  truths  that  He  pre- 
sented, but  He  gave  rather  a  series  of  short,  pointed 
sayings,  each  of  which  had  a  certain  completeness  in 
itself.  The  logical  relation  of  these  sentences  to  each 
other  must  often  be  learned  from  the  general  theme. 
These  proverb-like  sayings  of  Jesus  are  akin,  in  form, 
to  the  wisdom-literature  of  the  Old  Testament.  They 
abound  in  parallelisms,  by  which  they  fix  themselves  in 
the  memory  more  readily  (Matt.  x.  24,  27,  32,  33,  etc.). 
It   is   characteristic  of  the  proverb  that   while   it    pre- 

1  \\[ehex,  Jildisc/ie  Thfologie,  pp.  91-99. 


Il6  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

sents  thought  in  a  pointed  way,  it  presents  only  one 
phase  of  a  truth.  Thus  Jesus  says,  "  Every  one  that 
asketh  receiveth  "  (Matt.  vii.  8).  Taken  by  itself,  this 
gives  a  very  imperfect  idea  of  Jesus'  thought  regarding 
prayer.  It  makes  no  reference  to  the  conditions  of 
prayer;  it  also  passes  over  the  exceptions  to  the  rule 
that  what  is  asked  is  granted.  Hence  it  is  important, 
in  the  interpretation  of  these  sayings  of  Jesus,  to  study 
the  separate  saying  in  the  light  of  the  whole. 

In  the  third  place,  Christ's  words  were  largely 
figurative,  symbolic,  poetical.  They  contained  the 
highest  truth,  but  it  was  winged  and  breathing.  Nature 
and  common  life  enriched  every  discourse  with  apt  and 
forcible  illustrations.  Every  parable  is  a  miniature  in 
speech  and  can  be  readily  transferred  to  canvas.  After 
the  lapse  of  centuries,  and  after  passing  from  Aramaic  to 
Greek,  and  then  from  Greek  into  English,  the  words  of 
Jesus  have  a  simplicity  and  a  beauty,  a  force  and  a  maj- 
esty, which  worthily  accord  with  their  unique  content. 

These  are  some  of  the  literary  characteristics  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  that  made  it  singularly  attractive. 
Of  course  the  personality  of  the  speaker  —  the  gentle- 
ness and  grace  of  His  manner,  the  love  that  spoke  from 
His  eyes,  the  sympathy  that  expressed  itself  in  His 
voice,  the  authority  that  belonged  to  a  spiritual  ex- 
perience which  was  perfectly  real  and  perfectly  clear 
on  the  great  concerns  of  the  soul  —  this  personality  was 
far  greater  than  the  spoken  word,  and  may  well  have 
made  a  more  abiding  impression. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  II7 

Demoniac  Possession. 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  synagogue  in  Caper- 
naum made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  ordinary  hear- 
ers, and  led  them  to  put  Him  in  a  class  by  Himself,  far 
removed  from  the  scribes.  But  it  also  had  a  remarka- 
ble effect  upon  a  man  who  was  in  the  power  of  an 
unclean  spirit,  or  was  possessed  by  a  demon  (Mark  i. 
23  ;  Luke  iv.  33).  This  man  addressed  Jesus  in  a  loud 
voice,  and  assumed  to  be  spokesman  for  others,  either 
men  or  demons.  ''What  had  they  to  do  with  Jesus, 
or  Jesus  with  them  }  Had  He  come  to  destroy  them  ? 
They  knew  who  He  was,  the  Holy  One  of  God,"  that 
is,  the  Messiah.  Jesus  charged  the  demon  to  come 
out ;  the  man  was  thrown  into  paroxysms ;  the  demon 
came  out  with  a  great  cry ;  all  men  marvelled ;  and  the 
report  of  what  had  taken  place  was  spread  abroad 
through  all  the  surrounding  region. 

Occasions  and  Terms. 

This  first  case  of  demoniac  possession  is  typical  of 
all  the  cases  found  in  the  Gospels.  The  phenomenon 
is  met  only  in  the  Synoptists,  and  hence  is  connected 
chiefly  with  Galilee.  Six  cases  of  demoniac  possession 
are  described  in  detail  (Mark  i.  23  ;  v.  2 ;  vii.  25  ;  ix. 
25  ;  Matt.  ix.  32 ;  xii.  22),  and  there  is  a  reference  to 
another  individual  case,  that  of  Mary  Magdalene, 
which  is  not  described  (Luke  viii.  2).  There  are  also 
three  general  references  to  the  cure  of  demonized  ones 
(Mark  i.  34,  39;  iii.  n).      These  ten  references,  par- 


Il8  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

ticular  and  general,  are  all  connected  with  the  ministry 
of  Jesus.  In  addition  to  these  references,  it  is  said 
that  the  twelve  apostles  cast  out  many  demons,  when 
they  were  sent  forth  by  Jesus  on  the  Galilean  mission 
(Mark  vi.  13).  The  seventy  disciples  also  reported  to 
Jesus  that  the  demons  had  been  subject  to  them  (Luke 
X.  17).  There  is  also  reference  to  an  unknown  man 
whom  the  disciples  found  casting  out  demons  (Mark 

ix.  38). 

The  terms  used  for  the  foreign  power  which  was 
said  to  possess  the  man  are  demon  (Mark  i.  34 ;  Matt, 
viii.  31),  spirit  (Mark  ix.  20,  etc.),  iinrlean  spirit  (Ms-rk 
i.  23,  etc.),  and  evi/  spirit  (Luke  vii.  21). 

A  man  is  never  said  to  have  t/ie  devil,  or  a  devil,  or 
Satan. 

John  makes  no  mention  of  demoniac  possession  as 
that  is  understood  by  the  Synoptists.  On  one  occasion 
he  says  that  the  multitude  charged  Jesus  with  having 
a  demon,  because  He  had  said  that  they  were  seek- 
ing to  kill  Him  (John  vii.  20).  Again,  when  Jesus  told 
the  Jews  that  they  were  not  of  God,  they  retorted  that 
He  had  a  demon  (John  viii.  48) ;  and  when  He  said  that 
a  man  who  kept  His  word  should  never  die,  they  made 
the  same  charge  (John  viii.  52).  Finally,  when  He  had 
presented  Himself  as  the  good  shepherd,  who  had 
authority  to  lay  down  His  life  and  take  it  again,  they 
told  Him  that  He  had  a  demon  and  was  mad  (John  x. 
20).  In  all  these  passages  Jesus  is  charged  with  hav- 
ing a  demon  because  of  certain  statements  which  He 


THE   EARLY  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  1 19 

made  concerning  Himself  and  the  Jews.  This  charge 
is  a  form  of  abusive  language.  To  say  that  He  had  a 
demon  was  equivalent  to  calling  Him  a  Samaritan,  and 
to  saying  that  He  was  mad  (John  viii.  48 ;  x.  20).  This 
Johannean  usage  implies  that  people  in  Judea,  no  less 
than  those  of  Galilee,  believed  in  the  reality  of  de- 
moniac possession.  Otherwise  there  would  have  been 
no  force  in  the  abusive  language  when  they  said  that 
Jesus  had  a  demon,^ 

Demoniac  Possession  and  Physical  Disease. 

As  a  rule,  the  Synoptists  distinguish  between  demo- 
niac possession  and  physical  disease  {e.g.  Mark  i.  34 ; 
vi.  13).  In  His  commission  to  the  twelve,  Jesus  dis- 
tinguishes between  them  (Matt.  x.  i).  Sometimes  phys- 
ical affections  are  associated  with  demoniac  possession, 
as  deafness,  dumbness,  and  epilepsy  (Matt.  ix.  32  ;  xii. 
22;  Mark  ix.  18),  but  they  are  by  no  means  identified. 
In  these  cases  the  physical  ailment  is  regarded  as  the 
work  of  the  demon,  and  when  the  demon  is  cast  out, 
the  ailment  is  removed.  As  a  rule,  however,  possession 
by  demons  is  regarded  by  the  writers  as  wholly  distinct 
from  physical  disease.  It  is  conceivable,  perhaps,  that 
the  evangelists  were  mistaken  in  their  view  of  the  mat- 
ter, but  such  was  at  least  their  view. 

Demoniac  Possession  and  Sin. 

There  is  no  indication  that  demoniacs  were  regarded 
as  especially  wicked  either  by  Jesus  or  by  others.     The 

1  Analogous  to  the  Johannean  usage  is  Mark  iii.  22. 


120  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

view  that  in  the  demoniac  the  sinful  state  had  reached 
a  climax,  where  the  man  no  longer  had  sin,  but  sin  had 
the  man,  and  that  this  dominance  of  sin  was  traced  to  a 
superhuman  power,^  is  without  support  in  the  Gospels. 
The  case  of  a  boy  who  had  a  demon  from  childhood 
shows  that  Jesus  cannot  have  attributed  demoniac  pos- 
session to  special  sinfulness  (Mark  ix.  21).  But  the 
same  thing  may  be  surely  inferred  from  the  total  ab- 
sence of  any  allusion  by  Jesus  or  by  others  to  the  sinful- 
ness of  demoniacs.  In  two  instances  the  demonized 
are  apprehensive  that  Jesus  has  come  to  destroy  or  to 
torment  them  (Mark  i.  24;  v.  7),  and  this  language  sug- 
gests a  sense  of  guilt  somewhere.  It  is,  however,  the 
demons  themselves  to  whom  the  narrative  attributes  this 
sense  of  guilt,  and  therefore  these  passages  have  no 
necessary  bearing  on  the  moral  state  of  the  afflicted  man. 

Demoniac  Recognition  of  Jesus. 

It  seemed  to  be  characteristic  of  the  demoniacs  that 
they  recognized  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.^  Thus  the  man 
in  the  synagogue  in  Capernaum  addressed  Him  as  the 
Consecrated  One  of  God  (Mark  i.  24).  Again  we  have 
a  general  statement  that  the  unclean  spirits,  whenever 
they  beheld  Jesus,  cried  out,  saying,  "  Thou  art  the  Son 
of  God"  (Mark  iii.  11).  The  Gadarene  demoniac  is 
also  said  to  have  addressed  similar  words  to  Jesus 
(Mark  v.  f). 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  459. 

2  Yet  see  Mark  ix,  25  ;   Matt.  ix.  32  ;  xii.  22. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  121 

Now  if  it  be  a  historical  fact  that  demoniacs,  when 
they  confronted  Jesus,  recognized  Him  directly  as  the 
Messiah,  apart  from  anything  that  they  may  have  heard 
regarding  Him,  it  seems  psychologically  impossible  to 
harmonize  this  fact  with  the  view  that  demoniacs  were 
simply  insane  persons,  and  morally  impossible  to  explain 
it  if  the  demoniacs  were  simply  very  wicked  persons. 
Surely  sin  would  not  clarify  the  vision  for  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  we  cannot  believe 
tnat  any  physical  ailment  would  have  given  the  demoni- 
acs a  clearer  insight  into  the  character  of  Jesus  than 
His  own  friends  and  disciples  had.  But  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  the  demoniac  recognition  of  Jesus 
as  Messiah  was  direct,  or  whether  it  may  not  rather 
have  been  due  to  rumors  regarding  Jesus.  Even 
the  Gadarene,  though  living  in  a  region  which  Jesus 
had  not  visited,  may  conceivably  have  heard  about  Him, 
and  may  have  sprung  to  the  conclusion,  which  many 
wanted  to  hold,  that  He  was  the  Messiah.^  We  must 
remember  that  the  Messianic  hope  was  the  burning 
centre  of  Jewish  life,  whether  religious  or  political,  and 
that  consequently  rumors  regarding  any  great  character 
like  the  Baptist  or  Jesus  would  fly  with  electrical  rapid- 
ity to  the  most  distant  corners  of  the  land. 

Treatment  of  Demoniacs  by  Jesus. 
Jesus   treated   the   demoniacs   as   though  they  were 
really  possessed  by  evil  spirits.     He  called   upon   the 

1  Against  this  see  Weiss,  Das  Lcben  Jesu,  I.  463. 


122  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

unclean  spirit  to  come  out  of  the  Gadarene  (Mark  v.  8). 
In  like  manner  He  addressed  the  spirit  which  possessed 
a  certain  boy,  summoning  it  forth  and  forbidding  it  to 
enter  him  again  (Mark  ix.  25).  He  charged  the  unclean 
spirits  not  to  make  Him  known  (Mark  iii.  12).  Now  it 
might  perhaps  be  thought  possible  that  in  these  cases 
Jesus  momentarily  accommodated  Himself  to  the  delu- 
sions of  the  possessed  ones  in  order  to  heal  them.  But 
He  treated  the  matter  in  the  same  way  when  discours- 
ing with  His  disciples  and  with  other  Jews.  Thus  He 
commissioned  His  apostles  to  cast  out  demons  (Mark 
vi.  7),  and  He  tells  the  seventy  not  to  rejoice  that  the 
spirits  were  subject  to  them,  but  rather  in  the  fact  that 
their  names  were  written  in  heaven  (Luke  x.  20).  Had 
Jesus  known  that  demoniacs  were  not  controlled  by  evil 
spirits,  that  this  was  a  mere  superstition,  we  should  cer- 
tainly expect  that,  when  speaking  with  His  disciples, 
He  would  have  told  them  this.  The  view,  therefore, 
that  He  accommodated  Himself  to  a  popular  supersti- 
tion cannot  be  entertained. 

Some  scholars  hold  that  the  phenomenon  in  question 
was  insanity,  but  that  Jesus  shared  the  ^view  of  His 
countrymen  in  regard  to  it.^  The  general  ignorance  of 
the  time  in  regard  to  disease,  and  the  widespread  belief 
in  the  existence  of  demons  whose  joy  it  was  to  injure 
men,  make  it  possible  to  suppose  that  what  was  really 

1  Schvvartzkopff,  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol.  und  Kirche,  i897,viertes  Heft; 
Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesii,  H.  121  ;  Gould,  CoinuientiD-y  on  Mark,  p.  23  ; 
substantially  also  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  293-295. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 23 

a  mental  disease  was  regarded  as  demoniac  possession. 
It  is  not  so  easy,  however,  to  believe  that  Jesus  shared 
this  popular  error.  Manifestly,  if  He  did  share  it,  we 
may  hold  that  it  did  not  affect  His  qualification  to  be 
the  Messiah.  He  did  not  come  to  give  medical  or  psy- 
chological information,  but  to  reveal  God  and  to  found 
His  Kingdom  among  men.  It  may  be  doubted  whether 
this  mission  required  that  He  should  have  a  scientific 
knowledge  of  demoniac  possession.  The  most  signifi- 
cant point  after  all  is  that  Jesus  healed  the  demoniacs. 
Whether  the  demon  was  some  form  of  mental  disease 
or  a  foreign  spirit,  Jesus  was  its  master  and  banished  it 
with  a  word. 

At  Peter's  Home.     Healing  the  Sick. 

From  the  synagogue  where  Jesus  began  His  public 
Galilean  preaching,  and  where  for  the  first  time  He  had 
healed  a  demoniac,  He  went  to  the  house  of  Peter  and 
wrought  His  first  cure  of  ordinary  disease  (Mark  i. 
29-31;  Luke  iv.  38,39;  Matt.  viii.  14,  15).  This  was 
the  healing  of  Peter's  mother-in-law,  who  had  a  fever. 
At  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  either  in  the  house  of 
Peter  or  at  the  door.  He  healed  many  who  were  sick 
with  divers  diseases  (Mark  i.  32-34;  Matt.  viii.  16-17; 
Luke  iv.  40-41).  From  this  day  forward,  especially 
through  the  early  Galilean  ministry,  Jesus  frequently 
yielded  to  the  requests  for  physical  healing,  and  re- 
stored the  sick.  There  are  at  least  seventeen  specific 
cases  recorded. 


124  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

Extent  and   Variety  of  the  Cures. 

Besides  the  specific  cases  of  healing,  there  are  at 
least  three  general  statements,  which  involve  the  cure 
of  many  sick  persons  at  different  times  (Mark  i.  34; 
iii.  10;  vi.  56,  compared  with  Matt.  viii.  16;  Luke  iv. 
40;  vi.  19).  Two  of  these  general  statements  seem  to 
involve  the  heaHng  of  many  sick,  not  in  one  place  as 
Capernaum,  but  in  many  places  throughout  Galilee. 

The  different  diseases  and  physical  defects  which 
Jesus  is  said  to  have  healed  are  fever  (Mark  i.  30), 
leprosy  (Mark  i.  42),  palsy  (Mark  ii.  10),  vv^ithered 
hand  (Mark  iii.  i),  issue  of  blood  (Mark  v.  25),  deaf- 
ness (Mark  vii.  32),  dumbness  (Matt.  xv.  30),  blindness 
(Mark  viii.  22),  dropsy  (Luke  xiv.  2),  deformity  (Luke 
xiii.  11),  and  lameness  (Luke  vii.  22).^  It  cannot  be 
affirmed  that  each  of  these  diseases  is  surely  different 
from  the  others,  nor  can  it  be  affirmed  that  all  together 
exhaust  the  cases  which  Jesus  healed.  Matthew  twice 
speaks  of  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all  mamier  of 
disease  as  cured  by  Jesus  (Matt.  iv.  23;  ix.  35). 

Method  of  Healing. 

It  was  common  for  Jesus  to  lay  His  hand  on  the  sick 
as  He  healed  them,  or  to  come  into  some  sort  of  physi- 
cal contact  with  them,  but  about  as  common  not  to  do 
so  (Mark  i.  41;  viii.  23;  Luke  xiii.  13;  Matt.  xiv.  36; 
Mark  ii.  11;  iii.  5  ;  x.  52 ;  Matt.  viii.  13  ;  Luke  xvii.  14). 

1  The  restoration  of  the  ear  of  Malchus  (Luke  xxii.  51),  which  Peter 
had  cut  off,  may  be  added,  if  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  regarded  as  historical. 


THE   EARLY  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  12$ 

For  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  it  cannot  be  said  that 
His  cures  were  wrought  by  virtue  of  the  touch,  as 
though  by  some  sort  of  animal  magnetism.  It  seems 
to  have  been  the  behef  of  some  who  sought  healing 
from  Jesus,  that  to  touch  His  body  or  even  His  gar- 
ments would  bring  the  desired  help,  and  even  though 
Jesus  was  unaware  of  their  touch  (Mark  v.  27 ;  vi.  56). 
This,  however,  was  surely  a  superstitious  belief.  Jesus 
healed,  as  He  also  cast  out  demons  and  raised  the  dead, 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  by  the  finger  of  God  (Matt.  xii. 
28;  Luke  xi.  20;  Mark  vii.  33,  34;  John  xi.  41,  42). 
It  was  by  an  act  of  His  will,  in  dependence  upon 
God.  When  Jesus  touched  a  sick  person  or  laid  His 
hands  upon  him,  the  act  was  not  necessary,  for,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  about  half  the  instances,  there  was  no 
touch;  but  it  was  an  act  expressive  of  sympathy  and 
so  would  tend  to  awaken  confidence. 

As  a  rule,  whether  accompanied  by  a  touch  or  not, 
Jesus  spoke  some  word  to  the  sick,  which  was  followed 
by  immediate  or  gradual  recovery  (Mark  i.  42;  iii.  5,  etc.). 
In  a  single  instance,  He  is  represented  as  addressing  the 
disease  itself  (Luke  iv.  39),  as  He  addressed  the  wind 
and  the  sea. 

In  one  case,  probably  in  two,  Jesus  wrought  a  cure  in 
the  distance  (John  iv.  4^-53;  Matt.  viii.  5-13V 

1  It  seems  very  difficult  to  identify  these  incidents.  In  Matthew,  it  is  a 
Gentile  who  comes  to  Jesus ;  in  John,  apparently,  a  Jew.  In  Matthew, 
the  man  is  co?nmended  for  his  great  faith  ;  in  John,  he  is  rather  rebuked 
for  lack  of  faith.  Then  there  is  the  difference  in  place,  Jesus  being  in 
Capernaum  according  to  Matthew,  but  in  Cana  according  to  John. 


126  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF   JESUS 

It  was  not  Jesus'  method  to  make  use  of  any  physical 
means  in  healing  the  sick.  He  did  so  in  but  three  cases, 
one  of  deafness  and  two  of  blindness  (Mark  vii.  32  ;  viii. 
22 ;  John  ix.  6).  Once  He  put  spittle  on  the  tongue 
and  twice  He  put  it  on  the  eyes,  in  one  case  mingled 
with  clay.  The  spittle  in  these  cases  cannot  be  regarded 
as  a  medicinal  agent  that  effected  the  cure.  One  man 
whose  eyes  Jesus  anointed  was  born  blind  (John  ix.  i). 
Now  although  spittle  was  a  medicine  for  ophthalmia,  it 
surely  could  not  give  sight  to  one  born  blind.  There- 
fore the  means  sometimes  employed  by  Jesus  must  be 
otherwise  explained.  We  should  probably  regard  them 
in  the  same  way  that  we  regard  His  touch.  Neither 
was  necessary,  but  either  may  have  aided  weak  faith. 
It  is  sometimes  thought  that  the  healing,  in  these  cases, 
was  miraculously  begim,  but  was  then  aided  by  the  phys- 
ical means.^  This  view,  however,  is  not  tenable,  for 
though  in  two  instances  the  healing  wrought  by  Jesus 
was  gradual  (Mark  viii.  22-25;  Luke  xvii.  14),  in  most 
cases  it  was  immediate. 

As  to  the  condition  on  which  miracles  of  healing  were 
wrought  it  may  be  said  that,  as  a  rule,  faith  was  required. 
Jesus  could  not  do  mighty  works  in  Nazareth  because 
of  the  unbelief  of  the  people  (Mark  vi.  5).  He  asked 
the  blind  men  if  they  believed  that  He  could  heal  them 
(Matt.  ix.  28).  In  several  cases  He  said,  after  the  cure, 
"Thy  faith  has  saved  thee"  (Mark  v.  34;  x.  52  ;  Luke 
xvii.  19).    The  faith  which  Jesus  rewarded  with  a  miracle 

1  Weiss,  Das  Lebenjesu,  I.  475. 


THE  EARLY  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  I27 

of  healing  was  not  always  exercised  by  the  sick  person. 
In  some  cases  the  faith  of  the  sick  person's  friends  is 
said  to  condition  the  cure  (Mark  ii.  5  ;  John  iv.  46). 
It  perhaps  cannot  be  said  that  faith  was  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  a  miracle  of  healing.  As  Jesus  raised  the  dead 
when  there  was  apparently  no  behef  that  He  could  do  so, 
He  may  also  have  healed  the  sick,  if  He  chose,  even 
when  faith  was  wanting.  We  are  not,  however,  at  liberty 
to  suppose  that  Jesus  did  work  miracles  of  any  sort 
where  there  was  no  confidence  in  Him. 

In  many  cases  of  healing,  no  explicit  reference  is 
made  to  faith  as  in  any  wise  conditioning  the  cure,  though 
it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  no  faith  was  exercised. 

The  faith  in  Jesus  which  is  sometimes  said  to  have 
conditioned  His  cures  was  simply  faith  in  Him  as  one 
sent  from  God  who  was  able  to  work  the  desired  cure. 
It  was  not  faith  in  His  Messiahship.  He  did  not  ask 
the  blind  men  if  they  believed  Him  to  be  the  Messiah, 
but  only  if  they  believed  that  He  could  heal  them  (Matt. 
ix.  28).  And  He  never  conditioned  the  gift  of  healing 
on  the  acceptance  of  Him  as  the  Messiah. 

PiLvpose  of  the  Cures. 

The  cures  of  Jesus  were  wrought  to  lead  men  to 
faith  in  Him  as  the  Christ  of  God,  not  because  they  al- 
ready had  that  faith.  When  John  the  Baptist  sent  from 
his  prison  to  learn  whether  Jesus  was  really  the  Messiah, 
Jesus  replied  in  words  borrowed  from  Isaiah  (xxxv.  5,  6  ; 
Ixi.  i),  which  referred  to  physical  blessings  and  preach- 


128  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

ing  to  the  poor  (Matt.  xi.  5).  According  to  this  passage 
Jesus  regarded  His  cure  of  the  sick,  no  less  than  His 
proclamation  of  good  tidings  to  the  poor,  as  an  evidence 
of  Messiahship  foretold  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Yet  miracles  by  themselves  did  not  prove  the  Mes- 
siahship of  Jesus,  and  He  did  not  affirm  that  they  did. 
Old  Testament  prophets  had  wrought  similar  miracles. 
The  Messianic  significance  of  the  signs  was  nothing 
apart  from  the  Messianic  claim  made  by  Jesus.  But 
since  He  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  sent  from  God,  the 
signs  which  God  granted  Him  power  to  do  were  a  divine 
indorsement  of  His  claim.  Plainly  then  the  force  of 
the  signs  was  by  no  means  irresistible.  A  certain 
moral  earnestness  and  spiritual  insight  were  needful  if 
men  were  to  accept  the  signs  as  evidence  of  the  Mes- 
siahship of  Jesus.  This  is  involved,  for  example,  in 
the  answer  which  Jesus  sent  to  the  Baptist,  which  has 
already  been  cited.  The  last  word  of  that  answer  was, 
**  Blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  find  none  occasion  of 
stumbling  in  me."  He  would  not  have  spoken  thus 
had  not  the  witness  of  His  miracles  needed  to  be  con- 
firmed by  the  apprehension  of  Himself.  So  again  He 
exhorts  the  Jews  to  believe  His  works,  which  shows  that 
the  acceptance  of  the  works  was  not  like  the  acceptance 
of  mathematical  evidence  (John  x.  38).  One  might 
refuse  to  accept  this  evidence,  and  most  people  did 
refuse.  In  general  they  regarded  the  signs  of  Jesus 
as  proving  that  He  was  a  teacher  come  from  God,  or 
a  great  prophet,  but  nothing  more  (John  iii.  2 ;   ix.  33 ; 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 29 

xiv.    II  ;   Matt,   xvi,    14).     Some  of  His  enemies  even 
attributed  them  to  Satanic  power  (Mark  iii.  22). 

Totir  of  Galilee. 

Jesus  was  never  satisfied  to  heal  the  bodies  of  men 
if  His  influence  over  them  stopped  with  the  physical 
blessing.  If  it  was  all  that  people  wanted,  it  was  more 
than  Jesus  desired  to  give;  yet  it  was  the  least  He 
had  to  give  to  the  one  who  wanted  more. 

It  may  have  been  the  importunate  desire  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Capernaum  to  be  healed,  and  their  lack  of  desire 
for  the  things  of  the  Kingdom,  that  led  Jesus  forth  to 
pray  in  a  solitary  place  early  on  the  day  after  His 
numerous  miracles  (Mark  i.  35).  When  His  disciples 
had  found  Him,  they  reported  that  all  were  seeking 
Him  (Mark  i.  37).  Jesus,  however,  knew  why  they  were 
seeking  Him,  and  summoned  His  disciples  to  go  with 
Him  to  other  cities,  that  He  might  preach  there.  The 
people  who  sought  Him  wished  healing ;  He  wished  to 
preach  (Mark  i.  38). 

Thus  He  went  forth  on  a  tour  of  Galilee,  of  which, 
though  Matthew  and  Mark  say  it  was  comprehensive 
(Mark  i.  39;  Matt.  iv.  23),  we  have  practically  no 
specific  information.  That  He  preached  in  the  syna- 
gogues and  healed  the  sick,  as  he  had  done  in  Caper- 
naum, we  may  well  believe.  It  is  with  this  tour  that 
Mark  connects  the  incident  of  a  leper  whom  Jesus 
healed  (Mark  i.  40-45),  and  as  Mark  gives  this  incident 
in    a   fuller  and   clearer  form  than  either  Matthew  or 


130  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

Luke,^    his    chronological    disposition    of    it    is    to    be 
preferred. 

We  may  well  believe  that  this  incident  of  the  first 
Galilean  tour  has  survived  because  of  its  exceptional 
significance.  The  cure  of  leprosy  was  a  new  and  strik- 
ing manifestation  of  the  power  of  Jesus ;  the  stern 
way  in  which  Jesus  •  put  the  healed  man  out  of  the 
house  and  commanded  him  to  observe  the  Mosaic  ordi- 
nance, defined  His  attitude  toward  the  Law ;  the 
injunction  of  silence  was  typical  of  the  method  of  Jesus 
throughout  His  subsequent  Galilean  ministry  ;  the  man's 
disobedience  of  Jesus'  word  illustrates  the  general  fact 
that  the  miracles  of  healing  bore  little  spiritual  fruit ; 
and  the  excitement  produced  by  the  cure  interfered 
seriously  with  the  preaching  of  Jesus  —  the  first  of  sev- 
eral experiences  of  this  sort.  He  was  for  a  time  obliged 
to  discontinue  work  in  the  towns,  and  was  in  solitary 
places,  where,  however,  many  sought  Him  out. 

Again  in  Capernaum. 

This  first  tour,  of  indefinite  length,^  was  followed, 
according  to  Mark,^  by  a  period  of  work  in  and  near 
Capernaum  (ii.  i-iii.  12).  As  soon  as  it  was  known 
that  Jesus  was  at  home,  for  so  Peter's  house  seems  to 
have  been  regarded  (Mark  ii.  i  ;  comp.  iii.  20),  crowds 

1  Comp.  Luke  v.  15,  16  with  Mark  i.  45.  Matthew  omits  the  important 
consequences  of  the  miracle  because  he  puts  it  in  a  different  connection. 

2  5i'  TjfjiepoSv  (Mark  ii.  i). 

^  Mark's  order  is  followed  in  preference  to  Matthew's  because  he  gives 
a  clear  motive  for  Jesus'  retirement  to  the  east  side  of  the  lake,  iv.  35,  2^. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  131 

gathered,  and  Jesus  spoke  to  them,  until  interrupted  by 
an  appeal  for  physical  aid.  The  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  cure  of  the  paralytic  marked  it  off  from 
other  cures,  and  gave  it  a  singular  interest.  The  device 
for  getting  the  sick  man  into  the  presence  of  Jesus  was 
only  less  remarkable  than  the  word  which  Jesus  spoke 
to  him,  for  here,  for  the  first  time  in  our  record,  Jesus 
declared  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Mark  ii.  5).  Called  to 
account  by  the  scribes  for  this  act,  Jesus,  to  prove  that 
He  had  authority  to  do  what  men  would  call  the  easier, 
did  what  they  would  call  the  harder,  that  is,  healed  the 
man.  And  in  this  connection  He  used  for  the  first  time 
what  we  must  call  His  own  peculiar  self-designation, 
the  Son  of  Man.  The  investigation  of  this  name  be- 
longs to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,^  whence  it  appears  to 
have  been  a  synonym  of  Messiah.  Its  appearance  in 
the  narrative  of  the  Galilean  ministry  may  mark  an 
increase  of  emphasis  on  the  personal  claim  of  Jesus. 

The  call  of  Levi-Matthew,  which  all  the  Synoptists 
associate  with  this  visit  in  Capernaum  (Mark  ii.  14; 
Matt.  ix.  9;  Luke  v.  27),  has  unique  significance  as 
defining  Jesus'  attitude  toward  tax-gatherers.  He  called 
this  man,  as  He  had  previously  called  the  two  pairs  of 
brothers,  to  accompany  Him  in  His  work.  He  is  the 
fifth  and  last  disciple  of  whose  call  the  Synoptists  give 
us  any  details.  His  call  may  have  led  to  the  extension 
of  the  influence  of  Jesus  among  the  tax-gatherers,  for 
Levi  made  a  feast  for  Jesus,  at  which  many  publicans 

1  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  pp.  185-189. 


132  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

were  present  (Mark  ii.  15;  Luke  v.  29);  and  Jesus,  in 
reply  to  the  criticism  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  said 
that  this  was  the  sort  of  people  in  whom  He  was  espe- 
cially interested  (Mark  ii.  17).  The  ''sinners"  who  at 
this  time  appear,  and  in  association  with  the  tax-gath- 
erers, are  people  who  did  not  observe  the  law  in  the 
scrupulous  manner  of  scribes  and  Pharisees.^  It  is  at 
this  time,  therefore,  that  we  see  the  beginning  of  the 
attachment  to  Jesus  of  those  who  were  socially  outcast ; 
and  with  this,  naturally,  the  intensification  of  the  hostil- 
ity of  scribes  and  Pharisees.  They  complain  because 
He,  who  assumes  to  be  a  rabbi,  eats  with  disreputable 
people  (Mark  ii.  16);  they  complain  because  He  does 
not  regard  the  fasts  which  even  the  disciples  of  John 
observe  (Mark  ii.  18;  Matt.  ix.  14;  Luke  v.  33);  they 
charge  Him  with  violation  of  the  Sabbath  because  He 
allows  His  disciples  to  pluck  heads  of  grain  on  that 
day  to  satisfy  hunger  (Mark  ii.  24 ;  Matt.  xii.  2 ;  Luke 
vi.  2);  and  they  are  driven  to  take  counsel  with  their 
enemies,  the  Herodians,^  how  they  may  destroy  Jesus, 
because  He  heals  on  the  Sabbath  ^  (Mark  iii.  2,  6; 
Matt.  xii.  9-14;  Luke  vi.  6-13). 

It  is  here,  in  His  answer  to  the  question  about  fast- 
ing, that  we  hear  from  Jesus  the  first  allusion  to  His 
death,  veiled  and  probably  unnoticed  at  the  time,  but 

1  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  II.  400,  3d  ed. 

2  Supporters  of  the  Herod  family  and  hence  friendly  toward  Rome. 

8  There  are  other  instances  of  healing  on  the  Sabbath  which  seem  to 
have  been  later,  Luke  xiii.  10-17  ;   xiv.  1-6. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  133 

later  unmistakable  (Mark  ii.  19;  Matt.  ix.  15;  Luke 
V.  35).  This  allusion  is  general  in  character  and  con- 
tains no  suggestion  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  His  death. 

The  Sabbath  incidents  are  biographically  important 
because  they  mark  the  inception  of  the  purpose  to  kill 
Jesus,  and  because  they  illustrate  His  methods  of  argu- 
ing with  the  scribes.  In  defence  of  His  Sabbath  minis- 
tries, He  appeals,  in  one  case  to  Scripture  (Mark  ii.  25), 
again  to  the  moral  sense  of  His  hearers  (Mark  iii.  4), 
and  then  to  their  own  practices  (Luke  xiii.  15).  His 
claim  to  be  lord  of  the  Sabbath  (Mark  ii.  28),  like  His 
claim  to  have  authority  to  forgive  sin  (Mark  ii.  10), 
illustrates  the  manner  in  which,  at  this  time.  His  Mes- 
sianic consciousness  expressed  itself. 

Following  Mark,  we  associate  with  this  period  of 
work  in  Capernaum  and  its  vicinity  that  scene  which 
shows  us  the  height  of  the  popularity  of  Jesus  as  a 
healer  of  diseases  (Mark  iii.  7-12).  It  appears  that  He 
had  been  in  Capernaum  long  enough  to  have  attracted 
people  thither  from  the  most  distant  parts  of  the  land ; 
from  Idumea  on  the  south  to  the  regions  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon  on  the  north,  and  also  from  the  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan (Mark  iii.  8).  This  is  the  most  comprehensive 
geographical  statement  in  the  Gospels  regarding  the 
influence  of  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus.  For  it  was 
His  miracles,  as  Mark  says,  not  His  teaching,  that  drew 
people  from  the  ends  of  the  land  (Mark  iii.  8).  The 
press  of  those  who  desired  to  touch  Jesus  was  so  great 
that  He  was  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  a  boat  (Mark  iii.  9). 


134  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

The  Appointment  of  the   Twelve. 

It  was  at  this  time,  according  to  Mark  and  Luke, 
that  Jesus,  having  retired  to  a  mountain  with  His  dis- 
ciples, appointed  the  twelve  (Mark  iii.  14;  Luke 
vi.  13).  And  this  is  intrinsically  probable.  The  fact 
that  people  were  coming  from  distant  parts  of  the  land 
indicated  the  arrival  of  the  hour  when  He  should  mul- 
tiply His  influence,  both  as  a  healer  and  a  preacher  of 
the  Kingdom,  by  sending  forth  those  of  His  disciples 
who  were  best  qualified  for  the  work. 

The  beginnings  of  the  apostolate,  as  we  have  seen, 
were  made  by  the  Jordan,  when  Jesus  returned  from 
the  temptation,  and  attached  to  Himself  five  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Baptist.  During  the  eight  months  of  the 
Judean  ministry,  it  seems  probable  that  John  was  with 
Jesus,  because  of  the  information  regarding  this  period 
which  he  gives.  Whether  all  the  others  were  with 
Him,  and  if  so,  how  long  they  were  with  Him,  cannot 
be  said.  The  absence  of  any  reference  to  the  Judean 
ministry  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  which  was  based  on 
the  preaching  of  Peter,  lends  some  color  to  the  view 
that  Peter  was  not  with  Jesus  during  these  months. 
The  best  and  well-nigh  the  only  evidence  we  have  of 
the  spiritual  effect  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  during  the 
early  ministry  in  Galilee  is  the  fact  that  He  had  won  a 
number  of  disciples  from  whom  He  could  select  six  or 
seven  who  were,  in  a  measure,  fitted  to  represent  Him. 
There  is  no  indication  how  large  the  number  was  from 
which  these  were  chosen  (Mark  iii.   13;  Luke  vi.  13). 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  135 

The  statement  in  Luke  that  Jesus  spent  the  night  in 
prayer  (Luke  vi.  12),  which  preceded  the  day  of  the 
appointment  of  the  twelve,  accords  with  the  spirit  of 
the  entire  life  of  Jesus. 

The  Number  and  the  Men. 

The  choice  of  exactly  tzvelve  disciples,  while  it  may 
have  been  influenced  somewhat  by  the  amount  of  work 
to  be  done,  and  by  the  number  of  available  men,  was 
doubtless  chiefly  due  to  the  mission  for  which  Christ 
chose  them.  They  were  not  to  go  into  any  way  of  the 
Gentiles,  but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  Israel  (Matt.  x.  5-6). 
As  destined  primarily  for  the  twelve-fold  people  they 
were  twelve. 

The  twelve  were  probably  for  the  most  part  Gali- 
leans, perhaps  exclusively  so.  It  was  in  Galilee  that 
the  continuous  public  Messianic  work  of  Jesus  began, 
and  in  GaHlee  that  He  made  the  deepest  spiritual  im- 
pression. Peter,  Andrew,  and  Philip  were  natives  of 
Bethsaida  (John  i.  44) ;  James  and  John  were  at  home 
in  Capernaum  (Mark  i.  19).  Bartholomew-Nathanael 
was  from  Cana  (John  xxi.  2).  Matthew  seems  to  have 
lived  in  Capernaum  (Mark  ii.  14).  If  James,  the  son  of 
Alphaeus,  and  Thomas  were  brothers  of  Matthew,  as 
Weiss  1  thinks,  then  five  of  the  twelve  apostles  were 
from  Capernaum.  Simon  the  Cananaean  was  probably 
a  Galilean,  for  it  was  in  Galilee  that  the  leader  of  this 

1  Das  Leben/esu,  II.  85. 


136  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

party  of  Zealots  arose.^  The  only  one  of  the  twelve 
whose  name  points  away  from  Galilee  is  Judas  Iscarioty 
Iscariot  meaning  man  of  Kerioth,  and  Kerioth  was  in 
Judea,  But  too  much  weight  must  not  be  given  to  this 
circumstance,  for  John  twice  attaches  the  word  Iscariot 
to  the  father  of  Judas  (John  vi.  71  ;  xiii.  26).  In  accor- 
dance with  this,  Judas  himself  may  well  have  been  a 
Galilean. 

The  choice  of  Judas  was  as  the  choice  of  the  others. 
Jesus  hoped  he  would  be  a  useful  disciple.  He  doubt- 
less knew  his  weakness  and  peril,  as  He  knew  the 
weaknesses  of  the  other  disciples,  but  He  anticipated 
that  Judas  would  be  loyal  to  Him.  At  the  time  of  the 
crisis  in  Capernaum  Jesus  saw  that  Judas  was  being 
alienated  from  Him,  and,  according  to  John,  alluded  to 
this  defection  of  Judas  when  He  said, ''  Did  not  I  choose 
you  the  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  f  (John  vi.  70). 
But  it  cannot  be  inferred  that  He  gave  up  hope  of  win- 
ning Judas  even  then.  He  referred  to  him,  without 
calling  his  name,  as  a  devil,  but  He  called  Peter  Satan 
to  his  face,  and  yet  won  him  to  permanent  loyalty 
(Matt.  xvi.  23). 

As  regards  the  education  and  social  position  of  the 
twelve,  it  is  sometimes  underestimated.^  Four  only 
were  fishermen,  as  far  as  the  record  informs  us,  and 
of  these  James  and  John  belonged  to  a  family  of 
means  and  of  high  social  standing.     Their  father  had 

^  Acts  V.  37  ;   Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  I.  509. 
2  Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  p.  354. 


THE  EARLY  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  1 37 

hired  servants  (Mark  i.  20).  Their  mother  was  one  of 
the  women  who  supported  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  41),  and 
John  seems  to  have  had  a  home  in  Jerusalem  after  the 
crucifixion,  to  which  he  took  the  mother  of  Jesus  (John 
xix.  27).  As  to  social  standing,  John  was  acquainted 
with  the  high  priest,  so  that  he  not  only  had  admission 
to  the  palace  himself,  but  was  able  also  to  bring  Peter 
in  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  (John  xviii.  15). 

Matthew  must  have  been  a  man  of  some  education 
and  business  ability  in  order  to  occupy  the  position  of 
tax-gatherer. 

Purpose  of  the  Appointment. 

The  immediate  purpose  of  the  appointment  of  the 
twelve  was  plain  within  a  short  time  after  it  was  made. 
Jesus  called  them  unto  Him,  gave  them  authority  to 
cast  out  demons  and  to  heal  the  sick,  and  sent  them 
forth  to  preach  the  Kingdom  (Luke  ix.  1,2;  Mark  vi.  7). 
The  immediate  end  in  view  therefore  was  the  increasing 
of  His  own  influence.  His  apostles  were  to  spread  the 
news  of  the  Kingdom  where  He  had  not  pubHshed  it, 
and  where  perhaps  He  might  not  be  able  to  come ;  and 
as  evidence  that  they  were  indeed  representatives  of 
Jesus  and  His  Kingdom,  they  were  to  cast  out  demons 
and  heal  the  sick. 

The  ultimate  purpose  of  the  appointment  was  that 
these  men,  having  received  special  training  from  Jesus, 
might  carry  on  His  work  in  the  remoter  future,  after 
He  should    have   left  them  (Mark  iii.   14;    Acts  i.  8). 


138  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

Consequently  in  the  remainder  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
we  find  Him  giving  more  and  more  time  to  the  twelve. 
He  took  two  somewhat  extensive  tours  w^ith  them,  one 
to  Tyre  and  Sidon,  thence  over  Lebanon  and  through 
Decapolis  to  the  east  side  of  Lake  Galilee  (Mark  vii. 
24),  and  the  other  to  the  region  of  Cassarea  Philippi 
(Mark  viii.  27).  Much  of  the  last  few  weeks  was  devoted 
to  the  twelve,  and  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord 
were  largely  to  the  apostles,  together  or  individually. 

Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

About  the  time  of  the  appointment  of  the  twelve, 
Jesus  gave  His  disciples  an  address  on  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  His  Kingdom  and  its  relation  to  the  law, 
(Matt,  v-vii. ;  Luke  vi.  20-49).  Matthew  puts  this 
on  a  mountain  (v.  i),  Luke  at  the  foot  of  a  mountain 
(vi.  17).  Luke's  version  is  a  little  more  than  a  quarter 
as  long  as  that  of  Matthew,  though  elsewhere  in  his 
Gospel,  scattered  through  several  chapters,  he  has  ma- 
terial that  is  parallel  to  Matthew's  sermon  on  the  mount. 
The  historical  discourse  was  probably  a  good  deal 
unlike  both  the  version  of  Matthew  and  that  of  Luke. 
We  are  not  here  concerned  either  with  the  exact  Umits 
of  the  original  discourse  or  with  the  content  of  our  ver- 
sions of  it ;  but  simply  with  the  event  as  an  important 
moment  in  the  early  Galilean  ministry.  Jesus  had 
before  Him  a  company  of  disciples,  whom  He  regarded 
as  the  nucleus  of  the  divine  Kingdom  (Matt.  v.  13,  14). 
His  words  were  to  be  their  law  (Luke  vi.  47),  in  place 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 39 

of  the  law  given  unto  the  fathers.  He  is  sure  that  one 
who  does  these  words  will  be  as  a  house  built  upon  a 
rock  (Matt.  vii.  24),  for  in  Him  and  His  words  the  law 
and  the  prophets  are  fulfilled  (Matt.  v.  17).  Thus, 
though  Jesus  did  not  declare  His  Messiahship  explicitly, 
His  speech  constantly  implied  it.  Again,  it  was  plain 
to  Jesus  at  this  time  that  the  way  of  His  disciples,  like 
His  own,  was  to  be  a  way  beset  with  manifold  trials 
{e.g.  Luke  vi.  27-29),  but  leading  at  last  to  victory 
both  for  the  individual  and  for  the  Kingdom  {e.g.  Luke 
vi.  20-23;   Matt.  V.  13,  14). 

The  Proselyte  Centurion. 

Both  Matthew  and  Luke  attribute  to  this  period, 
spent  in  or  near  Capernaum,  the  healing  of  a  centu- 
rion's servant  (Matt.  viii.  5-13  ;  Luke  vii.  2-ioy  a  nar- 
rative of  special  interest  because  it  records  the  first 
instance  of  a  Gentile  petitioning  Jesus  for  help.  It  is 
not  unlikely  that  he  was  a  proselyte,  for  the  messengers 
speak  of  him  as  loving  the  Jews  and  as  having  built 
the  synagogue  (Luke  vii.  5).  This  latter  statement  sug- 
gests that  Capernaum  had  but  one  synagogue  and  also 
that  the  centurion  was  a  man  of  means.  The  inci- 
dent is  noteworthy  in  this  respect  also,  that  accord- 
ing to  Jesus,  the  centurion  had  a  greater  faith  than  He 
had  found  in  Israel  (Matt.  viii.   10;  Luke  vii.  9).     He 

1  The  narrative  of  Luke,  being  fuller  than  Matthew's  and  abounding 
in  details  which  bear  the  stamp  of  genuineness,  is  to  be  placed  before 
Matthew's. 


140  THE   STUDENT'S    LIFE  OF  JESUS 

thought  it  unnecessary  for  Jesus  to  come  to  his  house  ^ ; 
a  simple  word  of  command  would  be  sufficient.  Such 
faith  in  a  Gentile  seemed  significant  to  Jesus,  and  led  to 
His  first  recorded  utterance  regarding  the  share  which 
the  Gentiles  were  to  have  in  His  Kingdom  (Matt.  viii. 
II,  12).  Luke  does  not  record  that  Jesus  spoke  the 
desired  word,  but  his  narrative  implies  it  in  saying 
that  the  messengers  of  the  centurion,  on  their  return  to 
his  house,  found  the  servant  well  (Luke  vii.  lo). 

Opposition  from  Jerusalem. 

The  work  of  Jesus,  which  had  drawn  people  from 
the  distant  parts  of  the  land  for  help,  drew  from  Jeru- 
salem the  sharpest  opposition  which  had  thus  far  been 
manifest.  Jesus  was  again  in  a  house  (Mark  iii.  20), 
presumably  that  of  Peter,  engaged  as  usual  in  teach- 
ing and  working  cures  (Luke  xi.  i ;  Matt.  xii.  22).  The 
scribes  said  that  He  wrought  his  cures  by  connivance 
with  Beelzebub  (Mark  iii.  22),  thereby  hoping  to  alien- 
ate the  people  from  Him.  Jesus,  having  heard  of  the 
charge,  called  the  scribes  to  Him  (Mark  iii.  23),  showed 
them  the  absurdity  of  their  charge  (Mark  iii.  23-26; 
Matt.  xii.  27),  and  then  intimated  that  the  wickedness 
of  their  accusation  came  dangerously  near  the  limit  of 
human  sinfulness  (Mark  iii.  28-30).  They  were  attrib- 
uting to  Satan  what  they  knew  to  be  kindly,  beneficent 
deeds. 

Jesus  also  told  them  that  His  cures,  instead  of  argu- 

1  Comp.  John  iv.  47,  49. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  141 

ing  cooperation  with  Satan,  argued  that  Satan  him- 
self had  been  overcome  by  Him  (Mark  iii.  27),  and  said 
plainly  that  He  wrought  His  miracles  by  the  Spirit, 
or  the  finger,  of  God  (Matt.  xii.  28 ;  Luke  xi.  20).  It 
is  intrinsically  probable  that  Jesus,  at  this  time,  uttered 
the  severe  words  of  judgment  over  that  generation, 
which  Matthew  and  Luke  record  (Matt.  xii.  38-45  ; 
Luke  xi.  24-26,  29-32),  with  which  was  associated  an 
obscure  reference  to  His  death  and  resurrection  under 
the  parallelism  between  His  fate  and  that  of  Jonah. 

Opposition  from  His  Mother  and  Brothers. 

In  this  period  belongs  also  the  attempt  of  Mary  and 
the  brothers  of  Jesus  to  draw  Him  away  from  His 
course  of  public  action  (Mark  iii.  21,  31-35  ;  Matt.  xii. 
46-50;  Luke  viii.  19-21).  They  thought  He  was 
out  of  His  mind  (i^eo-rri).  In  Cana  or  Nazareth  they 
had  heard  of  His  words  and  deeds,  and  to  them  these 
were  not  evidence  of  Messiahship,  but  rather  of  loss 
of  mental  balance.  In  their  minds,  the  course  of  Jesus 
was  wholly  at  variance  with  His  claim  ;  and  their  judg- 
ment was  not  unlike  that  of  the  Baptist  and  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  people.  The  popular  conception 
of  Messiah  could  not  find  its  hero  in  Jesus.  He  was 
simply  an  itinerant  prophet,  and  the  intimations  which 
He  gave  of  His  Messiahship  were  utterly  incongruous 
with  His  outward  life. 

Whether  Jesus  saw  His  mother  and  brothers  on  this 
occasion,  we  are  not  told;  but  He  declared   that   His 


142  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

most   sacred    relationship   was   with    those   who   were 
doing  the  will  of  God  (Mark  iii.   35). 

Biographical  Hints  in  tJie  Parables. 

The  impression  made  by  the  Synoptists  is  that  Jesus 
began  to  speak  in  parables  near  the  close  of  the  early 
Galilean  ministry.  According  to  Mark,  He  spoke  the 
parable  of  the  sower  and  many  others  on  the  very 
day  on  which,  at  evening,  He  crossed  to  the  country  of 
the  Gerasenes  (Mark  iv.  35).  What  Jesus  said  of  the 
fulfilment  of  judgment  through  the  parables  (Mark  iv. 
II,  12)  accords  well  with  this  view  that  He  spoke  them 
toward  the  end  of  His  visit  in  Capernaum.  Another 
fact  which  points  the  same  way  is  that  the  parables 
were  intended  to  sift  the  hearers,  to  find  out  those  who 
were  spiritually  receptive  and  to  bring  them  into  closer 
relation  to  Jesus.  This  function  of  the  parable  sug- 
gests that  they  were  spoken  toward  the  end  of  the  work 
in  Capernaum  rather  than  at  its  beginning.  We  may 
say  that  Jesus  probably  intended  to  sift  His  hearers  by 
means  of  the  parables,  because  that  is  what  actually 
took  place  (Mark  iv.  10).  Some  out  of  the  multitude 
remained  with  Jesus  for  an  explanation  of  the  lesson  of 
the  story,  and  Mark  makes  the  general  statement  that 
Jesus  interpreted  all  the  parables  to  His  disciples 
(Mark  iv.  34).  Many  heard  the  parables  (Mark  iv. 
13);    few  learned  from  Jesus   the   spiritual  meaning. 

The  experience  of  Jesus  during  the  period  spent  in 
Capernaum  is  perhaps  reflected  in  some  of  the  parables 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINLSTRY  1 43 

that  He  spoke  at  its  close.  He  Himself  as  sower  of  the 
seed  had  found  hard  soil,  shallow  soil,  and  impure  soil, 
but  also  some  good  soil  from  which  He  was  getting  a 
harvest  (Mark  iv.  13-20).  He  may  also  have  had  His 
own  recent  experience  in  mind  when  He  likened  the 
Kingdom  to  a  net  that  takes  both  good  and  bad  fish 
(Matt.  xiii.  47-50). 

Asleep  m  the  Storm. 

The  early  Galilean  ministry  was  practically  at  an  end 
when,  on  a  certain  evening,  Jesus  summoned  His  disci- 
ples to  go  across  the  lake  to  the  east  side  (Mark  iv.  35), 
for  though  He  soon  returned  to  Capernaum  (Mark  v. 
21),  He  seems  to  have  gone,  after  a  little,  to  Jerusalem 
(John  V.  i).  It  appears  that  Jesus  started  for  the  east 
side  of  the  lake  for  rest.  At  any  rate  He  was  so  weary 
that  He  slept  during  the  terrible  storm  that  came  down 
upon  the  boat  (Mark  iv.  38),  and  He  does  not  seem  to 
have  gone  to  any  town  or  city  on  the  east  side.  It 
is  possible  that  He  returned  to  the  west  side  the  day 
after  the  storm  (Mark  v.  17,  18). 

According  to  Mark  other  boats  had  started  with  Jesus, 
but  they  seem  to  have  returned  before  the  storm.  They 
may  have  accompanied  Him  for  a  distance  as  a  sort  of 
honorary  escort.  When  the  storm  arose,  Jesus  was 
asleep,  and  not  until  the  last  moment  did  His  disciples 
awake  Him.  Then,  arising.  He  rebuked  the  wind  and 
the  sea,  saying,  according  to  Mark,  "Peace:  be  still." 
We  may  suppose  that  He  thus  addressed  the  elements, 


144  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

not  as  though  He  thought  them  hostile  powers  that 
could  hear  and  obey,  but  because  in  this  way  He  could 
most  easily  make  it  manifest  to  His  disciples  that  He, 
by  virtue  of  God's  aid,  could  still  the  storm.  It  was 
like  His  rebuking  the  fever  which  held  Peter's  mother- 
in-law  (Luke  iv.  39).     The  act  was  symbolical. 

It  is  of  course  to  be  held  that  this  miracle,  like  all 
the  mighty  works  of  Jesus,  was  wrought  by  virtue  of 
His  dependence  upon  God  (Matt.  xii.  28).  The  fact 
that  He  speaks  to  wind  and  sea  surely  does  not  imply 
that  He  is  acting  independently  of  God;  and  the  circum- 
stance that  no  prayer  is  here  mentioned  does  not  justify 
us  in  supposing  that  the  evangelists  thought  of  the 
miracle  as  different  from  the  others  wrought  by  Jesus. 
The  objection  to  this  narrative,  that  it  represents  Jesus 
as  taking  the  matter  of  His  personal  safety  into  His 
own  hands  instead  of  trusting  wholly  in  the  Father, 
might  be  allowed  to  have  force  if  Jesus  had  been  alone 
in  the  boat.  In  that  case  had  He  wrought  the  miracle, 
it  would  look  as  though  He  had  yielded  to  the  tempta- 
tion which  He  had  successfully  withstood  in  the  wilder- 
ness ;  but  that  is  not  the  case.  As  far  as  Jesus  Himself 
was  concerned.  He  zvoidd  apparently  have  slept  throtigJi 
the  storm.  But  He  had  His  apostles  with  Him,  and  His 
act  is  intelligible  as  a  lesson  to  them. 

The  Gerasene. 

The  storm  passed,  and  the  boat  reached  the  eastern 
shore  at  a  point  not  far  from  a  city  (Mark  v.  14),  which 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  145 

with  much  probability  has  been  identified  with  Gerza,^ 
which  lies  north  of  the  middle  of  the  east  shore,  directly 
opposite  Magdala.  Jesus  seems  not  to  have  visited  the 
city  (Mark  v.  17,  18). 

The  narrative  of  the  demoniac  ^  has  two  features  that 
distinguish  it  from  all  other  instances  of  the  healing  of 
demonized  people,  and  it  may  have  been  preserved  on 
account  of  these.  In  the  first  place,  the  cure  of  the 
man  was  in  some  way  associated  with  the  loss  of  a 
large  herd  of  swine,  according  to  Mark  about  two  thou- 
sand (Mark  v.  13).  From  the  standpoint  of  the  evan- 
gelists this  destruction  was  occasioned  by  the  demons 
who  had  come  out  of  the  man,  and  with  the  permission 
of  Jesus  had  entered  the  swine  (Mark  v.  13;  Matt, 
viii.  32 ;  Luke  viii.  32).  If  demoniac  possession  be 
regarded  as  a  form  of  mental  disease,  then  the  most 
natural  hypothesis  is  that  the  man,  in  the  paroxysm 
that  preceded  the  cure  and  in  the  belief  that  the  demons 
in  him  might  be  given  over  to  the  swine,  sprang  into 
the  herd,  and  thus  caused  a  fatal  stampede.^  If  Jesus 
be  held  responsible  for  the  destruction  of  the  swine,  — 
which  position  assumes,  without  ground,  that  He  knew 
what  effect  would  be  produced  upon  the  swine  by  His 
granting  the  request  of  the  demoniac, — then  an  apology 


1  Thompson,  Central  Palestine  and  Phoenicia,  pp.  353-355  ;   also  Mer- 
rill, in  East  of  the  Jordan. 

2  Mark  and  Luke  plainly  had  independent  sources,  which  do  not  always 
agree  in  detail. 

3  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  II.  193. 

L 


146  THE   STUDENT'S    LIFE   OF  JESUS 

for  the  act  is  found  in  the  healed  man  himself.     How 
much  is  a  man  better  than  swine ! 

A  second  unique  feature  of  this  cure  is  the  fact  that 
Jesus  sent  the  man  to  publish  among  his  people  what 
the  Lord  had  done  for  him  (Mark  v.  19).  On  the 
west  of  the  lake  He  had  repeatedly  sought  to  avoid 
publicity  in  the  working  of  miracles  of  healing  (Mark 
i.  44;  iii.  12).  The  explanation  of  this  difference  in 
policy  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  character  of  the 
population  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake.  As  the  Gen- 
tile element  was  very  large,^  and  as  the  region  on  the 
east  of  the  lake  was  sparsely  settled,  it  may  well  have 
been  that  Jesus  apprehended  no  political  demonstration 
in  consequence  of  His  Messianic  work.  It  is  possible, 
however,  that  Jesus  spoke  to  the  man  as  He  did 
because  He  did  not  contemplate  working  in  this  region. 
If  He  Himself  were  out  of  the  land,  a  single  miracle 
that  He  had  wrought  there  could  hardly  have  serious 
consequences. 

The  Daughter  of  Jairus. 

The  departure  of  Jesus  from  the  east  side  of  the 
lake  may  have  been  hastened  by  the  request  of  the 
Gerasenes  that  He  should  leave  their  borders  (Mark  v. 
17).  The  great  crowd  who  gathered  around  Jesus  on 
His  arrival  at  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  who,  according 
to  Luke,  were  expecting  Him  (Luke  viii.  40),  points  to 
the  neighborhood  of  Capernaum.     Yet  Jesus  does  not 

1  Schurer,  Geschichie  des  judischen  Volkes,  II.  11-14. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINIS  IRY  147 

seem  to  have  remained  here  and  to  have  resumed  the 
work  which  He  had  dropped  a  Httle  before,  when  He 
went  to  the  east  side  of  the  lake.  One  great  event, 
however,  is  to  be  connected  with  this  brief  visit,  accord- 
ing to  Mark  and  Luke,  namely,  the  first  instance  of  the 
raising  of  a  dead  person  by  Jesus  (Mark  v.  21-43  \  Luke 
viii.  40-56;  Matt.  ix.  18-26).  The  healing  of  a  woman, 
which  is  narrated  in  the  midst  of  the  account  regarding 
Jairus'  daughter  (Mark  v.  25-34)  probably  did  not  differ 
essentially  from  other  cures  wrought  by  Jesus,  though 
the  Synoptists  appear  to  have  regarded  it  as  wrought 
without  His  conscious  volition  (Mark  v.  30 ;  Luke  viii. 
46).  This  is  the  way  it  seemed  to  the  bystanders,  and 
the  word  of  Jesus,  "Who  touched  my  garments.!^" 
might  easily  be  supposed  to  confirm  their  impression. 
Then,  since  people  were  continually  crowding  against 
Him  (Mark  v.  24),  it  was  natural  to  explain  His  ques- 
tion by  the  supposition  that  He  must  have  perceived 
the  outgoing  of  healing  power  in  the  particular  case 
of  the  woman's  touch. ^  But  if  there  was  a  miracle 
wrought  in  the  woman,  then,  according  to  the  analogy 
of  all  the  mighty  works  of  Jesus,  we  must  hold  that 
it  was  with  the  knowledge  and  will  of  Jesus.  His 
question  is  not  unfavorable  to  this  view,  for  He  might 
have  had  knowledge  that  one  was  touching  Him  in 
faith,  and  yet  not  be  able,  on  turning,  to  recognize 
the  individual  who  had  touched  Him.  The  narrative 
gives   no   support   to   the   view  that   the   miracle  was 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben/esu,  I.  554-556. 


148  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

wrought  by  God  without  the  participation  of  Jesus ;  and 
we  should  give  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  *'  Thy  faith  hath 
saved  thee,"  an  unusual  meaning  if  we  should  hold  that 
He  thereby  confessed  that  He  had  no  part  in  her  cure. 

The  daughter  of  Jairus  was  not  dead  when  he  came 
to  Jesus,  but  was  nigh  to  death  (Mark  v.  23  ;  Luke  viii. 
42).^  Jairus  asked  for  a  cure,  not  for  a  resurrection. 
No  one  ever  asked  Jesus  to  raise  the  dead.  But  before 
the  house  of  Jairus  was  reached,  the  child  expired 
(Mark  v.  35),  and  when  Jesus  came  a  crowd  were  weep- 
ing and  wailing  (Mark  v.  38).  He  had  heard  on  the 
way  that  the  child  was  dead,  and,  since  after  that  He 
told  Jairus  not  to  fear.  He  must  have  been  confident 
that  God  had  granted  Him  power  to  raise  her  from 
death  (Mark  v.  36).  It  is  in  this  confidence  that  He 
can  speak  of  her  as  sleeping  (Mark  v.  39).  For  Him 
she  had  not  departed  forever,  but  at  His  touch,  as 
though  she  were  in  sleep,  she  would  rise.  Having  put 
out  the  noisy  throng,  and  with  the  parents  and  three  of 
His  disciples  as  witnesses,  He  took  the  child's  hand 
and  bade  her  rise  (Mark  v.  40,  41).  She  rose  immedi- 
ately and  walked  about  the  room  (Mark  v.  42). 

This  miracle  was  wrought  as  simply  and  with  as 
great  ease  as  though  the  child  had  only  been  ill.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  more  difficult  for 
Jesus  than  were  His  other  signs.  All  were  alike  to  the 
infinite  power  of  God,  on  which  He  depended. 

1  Matthew's  narrative  by  greatly  condensing  the  story  has  obscured 
this  point. 


THE   EARLY  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 49 

The  Mission  of  the  Tzvelve. 

Both  Mark  and  Matthew  refer  to  a  second  tour  in 
GaHlee  before  the  mission  of  the  twelve  (Mark  vi.  6 ; 
Matt.  ix.  35);  but  of  its  extent  and  character  and  spe- 
cial incidents  we  have  no  certain  knowledge.^  We 
have,  in  Matthew  (ix.  37),  the  suggestion  that  Jesus 
was  moved  to  send  out  the  apostles  by  the  plenteous- 
ness  of  the  harvest  which  He  saw. 

On  this  second  tour  of  Galilee  we  may,  with  Mark, 
put  the  visit  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth,  of  which  Luke  gives 
a  graphic  picture  (Luke  iv.  16-^0)?  The  brief  refer- 
ences of  Mark  and  Matthew  to  a  visit  in  Nazareth 
(Mark  vi.  1-6;  Matt.  xiii.  53-58)  are  in  essential  accord 
with  Luke,  and  must  be  assigned  to  the  same  visit. 
In  the  narrative  of  Luke,  Jesus,  applying  to  Himself 
Isaiah's  words  concerning  his  own  ministry  (Isa.  Ixi. 
I,  2),  began  His  address  with  words  of  grace  at  which 
all  marvelled  (Luke  iv.  22) ;  and  then,  interrupted  by 
remarks  full  of  narrow  prejudice  (Mark  vi.  2,  3 ;  Luke 
iv.  22,  last  clause).  He  closed  His  address  with  words 
of  warning  (Luke  iv.  23-27).  He  likened  His  experi- 
ence to  that  of  Elijah  and  Elisha.  As  they  found  but 
few  whom  they  could  help,  so  had  He;  and  He  inti- 
mates that  these  few  were  from  the  ranks  of  the  lowly 
and  the  outcast.     This  suggestion  that  the  Nazarenes 

1  The  incident  at  Nain  (Luke  vii.  i  i-i  7)  may  have  occurred  at  this  time. 

2  This  location  of  the  incident  is  preferred  to  the  view  of  the  earlier 
editions  because  it  is  associated  with  a  preaching  tour,  and  this  suits  the 
end  of  the  earher  Galilean  period  better  than  the  end  of  the  later.  Comp. 
Weiss,  Das  Lebenjesu,  11.  245. 


150  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

were  not  worthy  of  the  help  of  Jesus  led  to  an  attempt 
upon  His  life  (Luke  iv.  29),  which,  however,  for  some 
unknown  reason,  was  ineffectual. 

The  Mission  of  the   Twelve  and  that  of  the  Severity. 

Some  writers^  identify  the  mission  of  the  twelve 
apostles  and  the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples.  The 
grounds  for  this  identification  are,  first,  that  the  address 
to  the  seventy  in  Luke  x  is  the  same  in  substance  and 
often  in  expression  as  that  which  in  Mark  and  Matthew 
is  directed  to  the  twelve ;  and  second,  the  address  given 
in  Luke  x  presupposes  that  the  disciples  were  to  work 
permanently  and  independently,  which  does  not  agree 
with  the  view  that  they  were,  as  Luke  says,  messengers 
to  announce  the  approach  of  Jesus,  but  does  accord 
with  the  mission  of  the  twelve ;  and  third,  since  the 
mission  of  the  disciples  was  to  all  Israel,  it  would 
require  the  seventy  messengers  mentioned  by  Luke. 
Twelve  would  scarcely  have  been  sufficient. 

It  is  supposed  that  Luke  found  a  second  and  modi- 
fied report  of  the  mission  of  the  twelve,  and  thought  it 
the  report  of  an  independent  mission.  Jesus  may 
indeed  have  sent  out  disciples  to  the  number  of  sev- 
enty, but  they  were  all  sent  on  one  occasion.  He 
began  by  sending  the  twelve,  and  then  perhaps  on  the 
next  day  sent  the  rest. 

There  are,  however,  some  objections  to  this  view.  It 
is  true  that  the  instructions  which  Luke  says  Jesus  gave 

1  E.g.,  Weiss  and  Beyschlag. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN    MINISTRY  151 

to  the  seventy  are  substantially  the  same  which,  accord- 
ing to  Matthew,  are  found  in  the  address  to  the  twelve. 
But  the  importance  of  this  fact  may  be  overestimated. 
If  Jesus  sent  out  disciples  on  two  different  occasions,  to 
do  essentially  the  same  work,  we  should  not  be  surprised 
if  He  gave  them  practically  the  same  instructions.  This 
fact  of  itself  would  not  prove  that  the  mission  of  the  sev- 
enty was  identical  with  that  of  the  twelve.  Then  it  is 
easier  to  assume  that  Luke's  address  to  the  seventy  is 
out  of  its  original  place,  is  really  the  address  to  the 
twelve,  than  to  hold  that  the  mission  of  the  seventy  is 
not  independent. 

In  regard  to  the  second  point,  that  the  address  in 
Luke  X  presupposes  a  permanent  and  independent 
work  of  the  disciples,  which  does  not  suit  the  connec- 
tion in  which  the  address  stands,  it  must  be  said,  first, 
that  this  argument  has  no  force  unless  we  assume  that 
Jesus  intended  to  go  rapidly  to  Jerusalem.  But  we 
have  no  right  to  make  such  an  assumption.  It  was  yet 
six  months  before  Jesus  entered  Jerusalem  for  the  last 
time,  going  to  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  Part  of  this 
interval  He  spent  in  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and  part  in 
Perea.  The  idea  of  Luke  (ix.  51)  seems  to  have  been 
that  when  the  Galilean  work  was  done  and  Jesus  left 
Galilee  forever.  He  henceforth  had  His  death  in  Jeru- 
salem constantly  in  view.  But  Luke  may  have  had 
this  thought  while  knowing  that  there  were  yet  several 
months  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus.  But  further, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  mission  of  the  twelve 


152  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

in  Galilee  was  not  permanent,  but  quite  temporary. 
Probably  it  was  accomplished  in  much  less  than  a 
month. 

As  to  the  remaining  point,  that  twelve  were  too  few 
for  the  mission,  and  seventy  a  more  probable  number, 
it  cannot  be  regarded  as  having  great  force,  for  it  seems 
most  Hkely  that  the  mission  was  confined  to  GaHlee.  It 
is  not  probable  that  Jesus  would  have  sent  these  inex- 
perienced disciples  to  Judea  and  Jerusalem,  where  even 
He  Himself  had  thus  far  been  unable  to  make  any 
salutary  impression ;  and  certainly  it  is  unlikely  that 
the  Synoptists,  who  say  nothing  of  a  Judean  ministry 
of  Jesus,  thought  that  He  sent  His  disciples  to  Judea. 
But  we  cannot  say  that  twelve  disciples  were  too  few  to 
accomplish  what  Jesus  wished  to  have  done  in  the  little 
province  of  Galilee.  These  grounds,  therefore,  for  the 
identification  of  the  two  missions,  though  having  force, 
do  not  appear  conclusive.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
are  various  circumstances  in  connection  with  the  mis- 
sion of  the  seventy  which  seem  to  point  plainly  to  an 
event  different  from  the  mission  of  the  twelve.  Thus, 
in  the  first  place,  Luke  puts  the  mission  of  the  seventy 
at  the  final  departure  of  Jesus  from  Galilee,  but  the 
mission  of  the  twelve  was  in  the  midst  of  the  Galilean 
work  (Luke  vi.  13;  Mark  vi.  7).  Again,  Luke  says 
that  the  Lord  sent  forth  the  seventy  before  His  face, 
whither  He  was  about  to  come ;  but  there  is  no  indica- 
tion in  connection  with  the  mission  of  the  twelve  that 
Jesus  expected  to  visit  the  places  whither  they  went. 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 53 

It  is  pretty  certain  that  He  did  not  visit  many  of  them. 
Third,  it  is  not  easy  to  account  for  the  change  from 
twelve  to  seventy  if  the  same  mission  is  referred  to. 
If  the  mission  of  the  seventy  was  eminently  successful, 
as  Luke  relates,  then  it  is  the  more  remarkable  that 
Mark  and  Matthew,  when  speaking  of  the  same  mis- 
sion, make  no  allusion  to  more  than  twelve  messengers. 
Finally,  according  to  Mark  and  Matthew  (Mark  x.  i  ; 
Matt.  xix.  i),  when  Jesus  came  into  Perea,  great  multi- 
tudes followed  Him.  Now,  since  Jesus  had  not  worked 
in  this  region,  their  statement,  if  it  does  not  clearly  pre- 
suppose some  such  mission  as  Luke  x  records,  at  least 
favors  the  historical  character  of  Luke's  narrative. 

Instructions  to  the   Twelve. 

Mark  and  Luke  give  a  brief  account  of  Jesus'  in- 
structions to  the  twelve  ;  Matthew  gives  a  long  account 
(Mark  vi.  7-13;  Luke  ix.  1-6;  Matt.  x).  '  But  Mat- 
thew's account  cannot  be  regarded  as  wholly  suiting  the 
occasion.  Some  parts  of  it  must  have  been  spoken  by 
Jesus  at  other  times  than  when  the  apostles  were  sent 
out  in  Galilee.  So,  for  example,  the  passage  in  which 
it  is  said  that  the  disciples  shall  be  brought  before  gov- 
ernors and  kings,  also  that  they  shall  be  persecuted  in 
one  city  and  flee  into  another.  These  statements  con- 
cern the  future  and  independent  work  of  the  disciples, 
and  not  their  tour  in  GaHlee.  They  were  not  brought 
before  kings,  nor  persecuted  from  city  to  city,  nor 
beaten  in  synagogues.     They  were  not  at  that  time  as 


154  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves.  When  they  went  through 
Galilee  healing  the  sick  and  casting  out  demons,  they 
must  have  been  welcome  and  popular,  as  Jesus  always 
was  when  He  dispensed  physical  blessings. 

In  the  original  instructions  to  the  twelve,  Jesus  seems 
to  have  emphasized  two  points.  First,  they  were  to  go 
in  dependence  on  God.  They  were  not  to  take  bread  or 
money  with  them  (Mark  vi.  8).  The  laborer  was 
worthy  of  his  hire  (Matt.  x.  lo).  It  was  thought  possible 
that  some  towns  would  not  receive  their  message,  but 
even  in  such  cases  there  might  be  individuals  who 
would  be  friendly  toward  them,  and  who  would  provide 
for  their  bodily  needs.  Second,  they  were  to  go  in 
haste.  They  must  not  burden  themselves  with  two 
coats  (Mark  vi.  9).  They  must  stay  in  the  first  friendly 
house  which  they  should  enter  till  their  work  in  a 
particular  town  was  done  (Mark  vi.  10).  Thus  they 
were  to  regard  their  mission  as  an  urgent  one. 

The   Tour. 

It  is  probable,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  twelve  went 
forth  only  through  Galilee.  The  time  spent  on  this 
mission  can  have  been  only  a  few  weeks.  For  the 
disciples  were  back  again  with  Jesus  before  He  fed  the 
multitudes  at  the  northeast  corner  of  the  lake,  which, 
as  we  know,  occurred  just  before  the  Passover  (Mark 
vi.  34 ;  John  vi.  4).  The  feast  of  Purim,  which  Jesus 
attended,  or  during  which  He  was  in  Jerusalem  (John 
V.  i),  came  a  month  before  the  Passover.     Since  now 


THE   EARLY   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  I  55 

we  know  that  Jesus  was  for  a  time  separated  from  the 
twelve  just  before  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  (Mark 
vi.  30),  and  since  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were 
with  Him  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Purim,  it  seems 
most  likely  that  He  sent  the  twelve  forth  just  before 
He  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 


CHAPTER   XI 
At  the  Feast  of  Purim 

In  General. 

It  seems  probable,  as  has  been  said,  that  Jesus  went 
up  to  Jerusalem  while  His  disciples  were  absent  on 
their  mission  in  Galilee,  and  that  this  visit  was  the  one 
to  which  we  have  a  reference  in  John  v.  The  reasons 
for  thinking  of  the  Purim  feast  have  already  been 
stated.  There  is  no  indication  that  Jesus  went  to  Jeru- 
salem in  order  to  attend  the  feast  of  Purim,  which 
moreover  is  intrinsically  improbable.  This  was  not  a 
feast  enjoined  by  the  law,  but  was  of  late  origin,  in 
celebration  of  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  by  Esther. 
It  was  celebrated  on  the  14th  and  15th  of  the  month 
Adar  with  general  rejoicing.  But  the  fact  that  the 
Jewish  people  were  refusing  the  greater  deliverance 
which  Jesus  was  offering  them  must  have  made  these 
days  to  Jesus  a  time  of  sorrow  rather  than  joy.  How- 
ever, the  circumstance  that  Jesus  would  find  no  pleasure 
in  this  feast  is  no  proof  that  He  did  not  go  to  Jeru- 
salem at  this  time.  It  may  well  have  been  a  favorable 
opportunity  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  even  though  He  had 
no  interest  in  the  feast.     This  moreover  lasted  only  two 

156 


AT  THE   FEAST   OF   PURIM  1 57 

days,  and  the  probability  is  that  Jesus  was  in  Jerusalem 
considerably  longer  than  two  days,  perhaps  as  many 
weeks. 

Jesus  went  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Purim,  after 
an  absence  of  some  months,  presumably  to  continue 
His  Messianic  work.  The  few  days  which  He  had 
spent  there  at  the  last  Passover  seem  to  have  been 
nearly  fruitless,  but  now,  preceded  by  the  fame  of  His 
Galilean  ministry,  He  might  expect  better  things.  He 
cannot  have  remained  in  Jerusalem  or  in  Judea  very  long, 
for  before  the  Passover,  which  came  a  month  later  than 
the  Purim  feast.  He  was  again  in  Galilee  (John  vi.  1-4). 
John  tells  of  one  miracle  which  Jesus  wrought  at  this 
time,  and  from  the  controversy  that  it  occasioned  we 
can  infer  what  the  relation  was  between  Him  and  the 
religious  leaders. 

The  Bethesda  Sign. 

Both  in  itself  and  in  its  consequences  the  miracle 
wrought  upon  the  man  who  had  been  nearly  helpless 
for  thirty-eight  years  is  notable  (John  v.  2-9).  Jesus 
here  singled  out  one  from  a  multitude  who  were  sick, 
blind,  halt,  and  withered,  and  healed  him.  Nothing 
like  this  is  recorded  by  the  Synoptists.  They  represent 
Him  as  healing  great  numbers  of  sick  people.  Here 
the  exercise  of  miraculous  power  is  more  plainly  for  a 
sign,  and  for  this  end  the  healing  of  one  person  might 
be  as  good  as  would  be  the  healing  of  several.  How- 
ever,  as  in   Nazareth   He  could  not  do  many  mighty 


158  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

works  because  of  unbelief  (Mark  vi.  5),  so  in  Jerusalem 
the  exercise  of  His  beneficent  power  may  have  been 
Hmited  by  the  same  fact. 

It  is  noticeable  also  that  this  man  at  the  pool  was 
healed  by  one  who  was  a  total  stranger  to  him.  He  did 
not  know  that  it  was  Jesus  (John  v.  13).  Plainly  then, 
if  he  had  a  faith  which  at  all  conditioned  his  cure,  it 
was  a  faith  in  Jesus  without  knowing  that  it  was  Jesus, 
a  trust  in  the  manifest  kindness  of  a  stranger.  The 
interest  which  the  unknown  man  took  in  him  perhaps 
awakened  some  degree  of  expectancy,  so  that  when 
Jesus  told  him  to  rise,  he  was  ready  to  try. 

The  miracle  was  wrought  on  a  Sabbath  (John  v.  10), 
and  this  fact  led  at  once  to  the  persecution  of  Jesus, 
as  His  healing  the  withered  hand  in  Galilee  led  the 
Pharisees  and  Herodians  to  plot  His  death  (Mark  iii.  6). 
Hostility  toward  Jesus  was  increased  by  His  saying  that 
God  was  His  Father  (John  v.  18).  After  this  the  Jews 
sought  to  kill  Him.  Yet  now,  as  at  a  later  time,  they 
were  apparently  hindered  from  openly  proceeding  against 
Him  by  fear  of  the  common  people  (Mark  xiv.  2),  and 
He  was  able  to  remonstrate  against  their  actions  in 
public  and  to  defend  His  own  course  (John  v.  19-47). 

In  the  record  of  His  words  spoken  on  this  occasion, 
the  prominent  thought  is  His  Messianic  claim.  He 
said  that  God  was  His  Father,  and  that  what  the 
Father  did  He  also  did  (John  v.  17,  19).  He  claimed 
power  to  quicken  the  dead,  and  authority  to  judge 
all  men  (John  v.  21,  22).     He  said  that  He  had  Hfe 


AT  THE  FEAST  OF  PURIM  159 

in  Himself,  and  that  those  who  believed  in  Him  also 
had  eternal  life  (John  v.  24-26).  In  support  of  this 
Messianic  claim,  He  appealed  to  the  witness  of  John 
the  Baptist  (John  v.  33),  to  His  own  works  which  the 
Father  had  given  Him  to  do  (John  v.  36),  to  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Father,  perhaps  referring  to  the  divine 
voice  at  His  baptism  (John  v.  37),  and  to  the  Scrip- 
tures (John  V.  39,  40,  45-47)- 

When  Jesus  said  that  God  was  His  Father,  the  Jews 
at  once  inferred  that  He  made  Himself  equal  zvith  God 
(John  V.  18).  It  is  very  noteworthy  that  Jesus  repudi- 
ated this  inference.  Instead  of  making  Himself  equal 
with  God,  as  they  understood  that  word,  He  declares 
that  He  is  wholly  dependent  upon  God.  "  The  Son  can 
do  nothing  of  Himself  "  (John  v.  19).  But  if  He  is  thus 
dependent  on  God,  then  the  Jews'  inference  that  He 
made  Himself  equal  with  God  is  false.  The  claim  that 
God  is  His  Father,  and  His  Father  even  in  a  unique 
sense  that  separates  Him  from  all  other  men,  is  not  a 
claim  to  absolute  equality  with  God.  It  involves  a 
claim  to  Messiahship,  as  does  the  parallel  title  Son  of 
God  (John  v.  25),  but  that  is  plainly  different  from  the 
claim  which  they  thought  He  made  for  Himself.  In- 
deed, Jesus  says  in  this  address  that  one  of  His  Messi- 
anic prerogatives,  that  of  judging  men,  is  given  Him 
because  He  is  a  son  of  man  (John  v.  27),  that  is,  on  the 
ground,  not  of  divinity,  but  of  /mtnanity,  an  attribute 
which  the  Jews  thought  He  repudiated  when  He  said 
that  God  was  His  Father.     Then,  further,  He  says  that 


l60  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

His  authority  to  judge  has  been^/W;^  Him  by  the  Father, 
and  also  His  ability  to  communicate  life  (John  v.  22,  26). 
Had  the  inference  of  the  Jews  been  correct,  these  pre- 
rogatives would  have  belonged  to  Jesus  by  virtue  of  His 
very  being. 

The  polemical  part  of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the  Jews 
on  this  occasion  (John  v.  37  b-47)  throws  a  clear  light 
on  His  view  of  the  Messianic  element  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. He  claims,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Scriptures 
in  general  bear  witness  of  Him  (John  v.  39),  and  also 
that  Moses  in  particular  wrote  of  Him  (John  v.  46).  He 
accordingly  saw  a  Messianic  element  in  the  law  as  well 
as  in  the  prophets.  Further,  He  claimed  that  if  the 
Jews  had  believed  Moses,  they  must  have  believed  Him 
also.  In  other  words,  He  was  conscious  of  being  the 
counterpart  of  the  prophetic  element  in  the  law.  Of 
course,  the  Jews  supposed  that  they  believed  Moses,  and 
they  did  in  a  way ;  but  Jesus  denied  that  they  truly 
believed  him.  From  this  it  follows  that  believingy  as 
He  used  the  term,  contains  an  element  of  spiritual  per- 
ception. The  Jews  did  not  really  believe  Moses,  because 
they  did  not  see  the  spiritual  aim  of  his  teaching.  They 
did  not  understand  him.  In  like  manner,  men  could  not 
truly  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  unless  they  spiritually 
perceived  that  His  character  and  work  were  Messianic. 

With  Pharisees  at  Meat. 

It  is  possible,  though  not  probable,  that  the  Synop- 
tists   contain  material  which    belongs   in   the  visit   to 


AT  THE  FEAST  OF  PURIM  l6l 

Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Purim.  If  any  Synoptic 
narratives  are  to  be  assigned  to  this  period,  it  must 
be  those  of  Luke  which  depict  Jesus  as  the  guest  of 
Pharisees.^  In  Jerusalem,  rather  than  in  GaHlee,  He 
would  come  in  contact  with  Pharisees,  for  Jerusalem 
was  their  chief  residence  (Mark  vii.  i);  and  it  is  easier 
to  think  that  Jesus  was  received  into  the  homes  of 
Pharisees  at  the  close  of  the  first  year  of  His  ministry 
than  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  year,  when 
hostility  toward  Him  had  grown  more  intense. 

It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  the  anointing  of  Jesus' 
feet  in  the  house  of  Simon,  a  Pharisee,  and  His  attend- 
ance at  a  feast  made  by  another  prominent  Pharisee,  are 
to  be  associated  with  this  visit  (Luke  vii.  36-50;  xiv.  1-24). 

We  hold  that  Jesus  was  twice  anointed,  for  it  is 
impossible  to  identify  the  event  in  Bethany  with  the 
scene  described  by  Luke  (vii.  36-50).^  It  is  a  remark- 
able coincidence  that  the  host  in  both  cases  bore  the 
name  Simon  (Mark  xiv.  3  ;  Luke  vii.  40);  that  in  both 
cases  it  was  a  woman  who  anointed  Jesus  ;  and  that 
both  women  brought  an  alabaster  box  of  ointment. 
But  over  against  these  coincidences  are  numerous  and 
varied  and  great  differences.  Thus,  in  one  case,  the 
anointing  is  among  friends  (John  xii.  i,  2);  in  the 
other,  it  is  in  the  house  of  a  Pharisee,  who  had  no  real 
sympathy  with  Jesus ;  and  the  guests  at  the  table  are 
offended  that  Jesus  should  assume  to  forgive  sin  (Luke 

1  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  263  ;    II,  232. 

2  Yi(Sl\.zxi\zxiVi^  Johanneisches  Evangelium,  p.  143. 
M 


1 62  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

vii.  39-49).  In  one  case,  the  woman  is  an  intimate 
friend  of  Jesus  (John  xii.  3  ;  xi.  5),  in  the  other  she  is  a 
notorious  sinner,  who,  in  the  hour  of  the  anointing, 
first  experiences  forgiveness  of  sins  (Luke  vii.  37,  47). 
In  the  one  case,  the  act  is  defended  by  Jesus  as  a  prep- 
aration for  His  burial  (Mark  xiv.  8) ;  in  the  other,  it  is 
the  expression  of  a  love  and  faith  which  secure  forgive- 
ness of  sins  (Luke  vii.  47,  50).  The  situations  and 
motives  are  too  diverse  to  allow  room  for  the  theory  of 
identification. 

These  two  occasions  when  Jesus  accepted  the  hospi- 
tality of  Pharisees,  like  the  wedding  in  Cana  and  the 
dinner  given  by  Simon  (Mark  xiv.  3-9),  show  that 
Jesus  was  ready  to  accept  invitations  to  social  feasts. 
He  was  no  wilderness-prophet,  no  recluse  or  ascetic. 
Yet  He  did  not  attend  these  feasts  for  pleasure.  They 
were  opportunities  for  instruction  in  the  things  of  the 
Kingdom,  and  were  so  used  by  Jesus.  They  illustrate 
how  quickly  Jesus  perceived  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
passing  incidents,  and  with,  what  ease  He  could  express 
and  apply  that  meaning.  The  tears  and  kisses  and 
ointment  bestowed  upon  Him  by  the  sinful  woman 
were  proof  of  her  "much  love,"  and  so  were  proof  that 
she  felt  in  her  heart  that  her  many  sins  were  forgiven 
(Luke  vii.  38,  47).  Her  love  and  sacrifice  argue  that 
she  had  received  help  from  Him ;  and  this  help  must 
have  been  such  as  always  came  to  sinners  who  believed 
His  gracious  word.  Simon,  on  the  other  hand,  had* 
shown  Him  little  love,  and  so  must  have  had  little  sense 
of  indebtedness  to  Him. 


CHAPTER  XII 

The  Later  Galilean  Ministry 

General  View. 

The  second  part  of  the  Galilean  ministry  extended 
from  shortly  before  the  second  Passover  to  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  (John  vi.  i-vii.  lo);  in  round  numbers 
about  six  months.  The  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Matthew 
have  preserved  much  more  material  concerning  this 
period  than  is  found  in  Luke  and  John. 

Jesus  still  wrought  miracles,  but  fewer,  comparatively, 
than  in  the  first  part  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  Popular 
enthusiasm  reached  its  height  at  the  very  beginning  of 
this  period,  when  an  attempt  was  made  to  force  Jesus  to 
become  a  king.  This  was  the  turning-point  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  as  a  whole.  From  this  time  forward  Jesus 
devoted  Himself  more  and  more  to  His  disciples.  Hence 
the  second  part  of  the  Galilean  ministry  contained  a 
larger  element  of  private  teaching  than  the  first.  It 
was  also  in  the  second  part  of  the  Galilean  ministry 
that  Jesus  began  to  teach  His  disciples  in  regard  to 
His  death  and  resurrection. 

Return  of  the  Twelve. 

Soon  after  Jesus  had  come  back  from  Jerusalem  to 
Galilee,  His  disciples  returned  from  their  mission,  and 

163 


1 64  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

met  Him  at  some  place  on  Lake  Galilee,  probably 
Capernaum  (Mark  vi.  30,  33).  They  reported  what  they 
had  done  and  taught,  apparently  dwelling  on  the  mira- 
cles which  they  had  wrought  in  Jesus'  name  (Mark  vi. 
30;  Luke  ix.  10).  But  there  was  little  opportunity  for 
Him  to  talk  with  them  about  their  work,  for  He  seems 
to  have  been  thronged  by  the  sick  as  soon  as  it  was 
known  that  He  had  returned  to  Capernaum,  and  as  in 
the  earlier  days  He  still  healed  them  (John  vi.  2 ;  Mark 
vi.  31). 

Two  circumstances  led  Him  to  withdraw  from  Caper- 
naum and  from  the  multitudes  who  thronged  Him. 
First,  He  wished  that  His  disciples  might  have  a  little 
rest  (Mark  vi.  31).  They  had  refreshed  others;  now 
they  in  turn  should  be  refreshed.  A  second  circum- 
stance which  may  have  influenced  Jesus  to  withdraw 
from  Capernaum  was  of  a  political  nature  (Matt.  xiv.  13). 
Herod  had  heard  reports  concerning  Jesus,  and  in  the 
last  weeks  had  probably  heard  much  of  His  name  by 
reason  of  the  miracles  and  words  of  the  twelve  disciples 
(Mark  vi.  14;  Luke  ix.  7).  It  is  possible  that  some  of 
the  disciples  had  visited  Tiberias,  one  of  the  two  capi- 
tals of  Herod  Antipas.  At  any  rate,  Herod  was  much 
perplexed,  and  sought  to  see  Jesus  (Luke  ix.  9).  When 
Jesus  learned  of  this.  He  withdrew  to  a  place  outside  the 
jurisdiction  of  Herod,  namely,  Bethsaida  Julias  (Luke 
ix.  10).  This  was  in  the  domain  of  Philip.  We  may 
well  believe  that  Jesus  had  no  desire  to  meet  the  man 
who  had  just  murdered  His  forerunner  (Matt.  xiv.  1-12). 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 65 

Feeding  of  the  Mtdtitiide. 

Jesus  and  His  disciples  had  no  sooner  started  by  boat 
for  the  eastern  side  of  the  lake  than  the  people  perceived 
it ;  and  judging  of  their  destination  from  the  course  they 
had  taken,  many  set  out  from  Capernaum  on  foot,  deter- 
mined that  the  worker  of  miracles  should  not  escape 
from  them  (Mark  vi.  33).  As  the  crowd  moved  along 
the  thickly  populated  northwest  shore  of  the  lake  it 
rapidly  increased.  Mark  says  that  people  joined  it  from 
all  the  cities  (Mark  vi.  33).  Some  went  with  such  speed 
that  they  reached  the  point  toward  which  the  boat  of 
Jesus  was  directed  before  it  came  to  land  (Mark  vi.  33). 
Others  must  have  gone  more  slowly,  for  they  took  their 
sick  with  them  (Matt.  xiv.  14).  When  Jesus  and  His 
disciples  had  reached  the  high  ground  on  the  east  side 
of  the  lake  (John  vi.  3),  a  great  multitude  were  soon 
gathered  before  Him.  This  seems  to  have  been  early 
in  the  day,  for  He  taught  them  many  things  (Mark  vi. 
34),  and  healed  their  sick  (Matt.  xiv.  14),  before  evening 
had  come.  When  it  began  to  grow  dark,  the  disciples 
wished  Jesus  to  send  the  throngs  away  that  they  might 
get  themselves  food.  But  He  had  a  different  thought 
for  the  multitude;  and  although  it  was  a  thought  of 
love,  it  had  very  grave  consequences. 

All  four  evangelists  agree  that  the  provision  which 
was  put  into  the  hands  of  Jesus  was  five  loaves  of  bread 
and  two  fishes  (John  vi.  9;  Luke  ix.  13;  Mark  vi.  38; 
Matt.  xiv.  17).  According  to  John  the  disciples  procured 
these  loaves  and  fish  of  a  boy  who  chanced  to  be  present 


1 66  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

(John  vi.  9).  They  had  left  Capernaum  in  haste,  and 
seem  to  have  taken  nothing  with  them.  All  the  evan- 
gelists agree  that  there  were  about  five  thousand  men 
who  ate  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  and  Matthew  says 
there  were  also  women  and  children.  Mark  and  Luke 
say  that  the  multitudes  were  seated  in  a  methodical  way, 
though  they  do  not  agree  as  to  the  size  of  the  different 
companies.  Luke  says  there  were  about  fifty  in  each 
group,  Mark  says  they  were  seated  by  hundreds  and  by 
fifties.  This,  however,  is  an  unimportant  detail.  The 
estimate  of  the  total  number,  for  it  was  only  an  estimate, 
was  five  thousand. 

All  the  evangelists  agree  that  when  the  multitudes 
had  eaten  until  they  were  satisfied,  the  disciples  took 
up  the  fragments,  at  Jesus'  direction  (John),  and  found 
that  there  were  twelve  baskets  of  these.  Each  disciple 
filled  his  basket.  Mark  is  particular  to  notice  that 
there  were  fragments  of  the  fish  left  as  well  as  of  the 
bread  (Mark  vi.  43). 

The  meaning  of  the  miracle  was  the  same  as  the 
meaning  of  all  the  miracles.  It  presented  Jesus  as  the 
divine  helper  of  men  who  are  in  need.  It  concerned 
the  physical  man  directly,  Uke  the  miracles  of  healing ; 
but  those  who  were  spiritually  hungry  might  draw  from 
it  the  easy  inference  that  this  Jesus  could  feed  their 
souls  as  well  as  their  bodies.^ 

Some  writers,  though  admitting  the  supernatural  in 

1  John  seems  to  have  regarded  the  miracle  as  a  counterpart  of  the 
Passover.     Force  of  oSv  in  John  vi.  5. 


THE   LATER  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 67 

the  work  of  Jesus,  do  not  find  a  miracle  of  creation 
in  this  narrative  of  the  feeding  of  a  great  multitude.^ 
We  cannot  suppose  that  cooked  bread  and  roasted  fish 
increased  in  the  hands  of  Jesus.  He  began  to  feed  the 
multitude  with  the  five  loaves  and  two  fishes,  believing 
that  God  in  some  way  would  provide  for  the  entire  com- 
pany, and  His  generous  example  opened  the  hearts  of 
those  who  had  provisions,  and  they  brought  them  to 
His  feet.  This  act,  it  is  said,  was  as  much  to  the 
glory  of  God  and  of  Jesus  as  though  He  had  miracu- 
lously increased  the  loaves  in  His  hands.  The  narra- 
tives do  not  speak  of  a  miracle  of  creation,  and  therefore 
we  are  at  liberty  to  think  that  the  miracle  was  one  of 
providence. 

Now  it  is  conceivable  that  the  example  of  Jesus 
might  influence  men  in  the  way  which  this  explana- 
tion supposes,  but  is  it  possible  to  reconcile  the  text 
with  this  explanation .?  The  evangelists  know  of  only 
five  loaves  and  two  fishes.  If  an  indefinite  amount  of 
provisions  had  been  furnished  in  addition  to  this,  we 
should  expect  some  reference  to  it  in  one  or  the  other  of 
the  four  narratives.  John  says  that  the  twelve  baskets 
of  fragments  were  taken  up  from  \\i^  five  barley  loaves, 
thus  seeming  to  exclude  any  other  original  provision. 
Again,  the  evangelists  plainly  regard  the  act  of  Jesus 
as  a  great  miracle.  That  is  the  reason  why  they  relate 
it  at  length.    But  if  we  reduce  the  event  to  the  influence 

1  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  1.  310  j  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  II.  193  ; 
Keim,/^j«5  of  Nazara,  IV.  194. 


1 68  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

of  Jesus'  example,  however  beautiful  and  significant 
that  might  be,  then  it  is  no  longer  a  miracle  in  the 
New  Testament  sense  of  that  word.  Then,  further, 
it  is  doubtful  whether  we  can  assume  that  there  were 
many  in  the  multitude  who  had  provision.  They  who 
do  assume  this  think  that  the  multitude  included  a 
large  number  of  persons  who  were  on  their  way  to 
Jerusalem  to  the  Passover.  But  even  if  we  assume 
this,  can  we  suppose  that  they  would  have  carried  their 
baskets  of  provision  aside  into  this  desert  region  east 
of  the  lake  ?  Finally,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  these 
Galilean  multitudes  who  had  seen  many  miracles  of 
Jesus  should  have  been  roused  to  an  unparalleled 
enthusiasm  on  this  occasion,  as  they  were,  if  the  act 
of  Jesus  was  nothing  more  than  a  generous  example. 
The  Jews  of  Jesus'  time  were  stirred  by  miracles,  but 
they  were  not  of  such  a  spiritual  character  that  they 
would  see  evidence  of  Messiahship  in  a  self-denying 
deed. 

When  the  people  realized  what  Jesus  had  done,  they 
said,  "This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet  that  cometh  into 
the  world"  (John  vi.  14),  thus  giving  a  Messianic  in- 
terpretation to  Deut.  xviii.  15.  Jesus  saw  that  they 
would  attempt  to  take  Him  by  force  and  make  Him 
king,  and  therefore  He  withdrew  from  them  alone  to 
the  mountain  that  rose  above  them  (John  vi.  15). 
There  must  have  been  intense  excitement.  The  people 
knew  Jesus  well  enough  to  be  certain  that  He  would 
not  willingly  head  an  insurrection  after  the  manner  of 


THE  LATER  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  169 

Judas  the  Zealot,  and  allow  Himself  to  be  proclaimed 
as  the  political  deliverer  of  His  people ;  but  still  they 
fancied  that  they  might  constrain  Him  even  against 
His  will  to  carry  out  their  Messianic  ideal. 

In  this  hour  of  excitement  Jesus  sent  His  disciples 
away,  manifestly  against  their  wish  (Mark  vi.  45).  He 
could  deal  more  easily  with  the  multitude  if  no  com- 
plications arose  in  connection  with  His  disciples.  It 
is  not  at  all  improbable  that  some  of  them  were  in 
danger  of  being  swept  away  by  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
crowd,  for  they  were  Galileans  and  one  of  them  a 
Zealot.  It  is  one  of  the  highest  proofs  of  the  remark- 
able power  which  Jesus  possessed  to  control  men,  that 
He  was  able  to  send  these  multitudes  away  (Matt, 
xiv.  23),  or  quietly  to  withdraw  from  them  (John  vi. 
15),  when  their  hearts  were  set  on  Him,  and  when 
they  were  ready  to  resort  to  force  to  accomplish  their 
wish. 

Walking  on  the  Lake. 

The  Synoptists  say  that  Jesus  withdrew  to  the  moun- 
tain to  pray  (Mark.  vi.  46 ;  Matt.  xiv.  23),  and  we  may 
well  suppose  that  it  was  the  carnal  desire  of  the  multi- 
tude, their  lack  of  spiritual  receptivity,  which  drove 
Jesus  to  solitary  communion  with  the  Father. 

The  disciples  had  embarked  on  the  east  side  of  the 
lake,  at  evening,  and  started  for  Capernaum  (John  vi. 
17),  perhaps  intending  to  go  from  there  to  Bethsaida 
(Mark  vi.  45).     The  distance  in  a  straight  course  was 


I/O  THE   STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

about  four  miles.  The  night  was  relatively  light,  for 
Jesus  could  see  the  boat  from  the  eminence  where  He 
was  praying  (Mark  vi.  48).  There  was  no  storm,  but  a 
contrary  wind.  Instead  of  reaching  their  destination 
in  an  hour  or  two,  they  were  on  the  lake  about  nine 
hours  and  not  yet  at  land.  John  estimates  that  they 
had  rowed  from  twenty-five  to  thirty  furlongs,  that  is 
three  to  three  and  a  half  miles  (John  vi.   19). 

Sometime  between  three  and  six  o'clock  they  saw 
Jesus  walking  on  the  lake  (Mark  vi.  48).  It  seems 
probable  from  John  vi.  17  that  it  was  His  plan  to  over- 
take His  disciples  in  some  way,  either  by  boat  or  by 
following  along  the  shore  until  they  could  row  in  and 
take  Him  aboard.  John  at  least  was  wondering  why 
the  Lord  did  not  come.  The  language  that  he  uses, 
"Jesus  had  not  yet  come  to  them,"  is  difficult  of 
explanation  unless  Jesus  had  an  understanding  with 
His  disciples  that  He  would  join  them  on  their  way  to 
Capernaum  (John  vi.  17).  This  view  is  strengthened 
by  the  circumstance  that  they  had  been  on  the  lake 
from  evening  until  the  fourth  watch,  for  it  is  scarcely 
probable  that  they  had  rowed  all  that  time.  We  are 
rather  to  suppose  that,  having  embarked,  they  waited 
for  the  Lord,  even  as  a  large  part  of  the  multitude 
waited  through  the  entire  night  in  the  hope  of  inter- 
cepting Jesus  when  He  should  come  down  from  the 
mountain  (John  vi.  22). 

When  at  last  the  disciples  saw  Jesus,  they  thought 
they  saw  a  spectre,  and  their  cry  of  terror  led  Him  to 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 71 

speak  and  to  reassure  them.  According  to  John  (vi. 
19),  when  they  saw  Jesus,  He  seemed  to  be  drawing 
near  to  the  boat,  and  according  to  Mark  (vi.  48),  it 
looked  as  though  He  was  passing  by  them.  It  is 
certain,  however,  that  He  was  coming  to  their  relief,  for 
otherwise  His  walking  on  the  lake  would  be  unintelli- 
gible ;  and  if  He  was  passing  by,  this  must  be  under- 
stood, not  as  showing  a  settled  purpose  to  leave  them, 
but  as  a  temporary  expedient  designed  in  some  way  for 
their  good.  It  is  possible  that  Jesus  refrained  from 
coming,  directly  toward  the  ship  because  that  would 
have  frightened  the  disciples  more  than  His  merely 
passing  by.  When  near  enough  to  speak,  He  reassured 
them  by  His  calm  words,  and  entered  into  the  boat. 
The  wind  soon  ceased,  and  according  to  John  they 
were  straightway  at  the  land. 

Some  writers  ^  feel  that  there  was  no  adequate  purpose 
for  this  miracle,  and  therefore  reduce  the  historical 
basis  to  a  providential  appearance  of  Jesus  on  the 
shore.  Just  when  the  disciples  saw  Jesus,  they  reached 
the  land,  and  so  it  seemed  as  though  His  presence 
saved  them ;  and  later  what  seemed  to  them  miraculous 
actually  assumed  the  form  of  a  miracle. 

But  is  it  probable  that  fishermen  like  Peter,  accus- 
tomed for  years  to  this  lake,  should  not  have  known  in 
a  moonHght  night ^  whether  they  were  near  the  shore; 
and  is  it  probable  that  all  should  have  been  convinced 

1  E.g.,  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  II.  211-213. 

^  For  the  moon  was  full  when  the  Passover  was  observed. 


1/2  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

that  Jesus  was  on  the  water  when  in  reality  He  was  on 
the  land  ? 

Then  it  may  perhaps  be  held  that  this  miracle  has  as 
plain  and  adequate  an  aim  as  has  any  one  of  the  mira- 
cles of  Jesus.  For  in  a  signal  and  impressive  way  it 
showed  Him  as  the  divine  deliverer.  It  is  true  that  the 
lives  of  the  disciples  are  not  said  to  have  been  in  peril, 
and  it  is  altogether  probable  that  they  would  have  come 
safely  to  the  shore,  even  had  not  Jesus  come  to  them  ; 
but  they  were  certainly  in  a  condition  to  appreciate  help, 
and  that  was  reason  enough  for  Jesus  to  help  them. 
If  there  was  not  adequate  reason  for  this  miracle,  then 
there  was  not  adequate  reason  for  the  miracle  of  feed- 
ing the  five  thousand.  It  was  not  a  matter  of  life  and 
death  that  they  should  have  bread  that  evening  when 
Jesus  fed  them. 

Of  course  Peter  did  not  walk  on  the  water  to  Jesus 
and  then  back  to  the  boat  with  Him,  if  Jesus  Himself 
was  not  on  the  lake  but  on  the  shore,  and  therefore 
some  ^  regard  this  narrative  as  an  allegory  (Matt.  xiv.  28- 
31).  If  historical,  we  might  have  expected  to  find  it  in 
Mark,  for  Mark's  Gospel  is  based  on  the  preaching  of 
Peter;  and  yet  we  cannot  assume  that  Peter  related 
everything  about  himself,  or  that  Mark  recorded  every- 
thing that  he  heard  from  Peter.  So  we  can  hardly  urge 
against  the  historicity  of  the  passage  that  it  is  not  found 
in  Mark.  Nor  can  we  say  that  the  narrative  of  John 
leaves  no  room  for  the  incident  recorded  in  Matthew. 

1  E.g.^  Weiss,  Das  Lebenjesu,  II.  214,  note. 


THE   LATER  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  1 73 

For  Peter's  experiment  belongs  at  the  end  of  John  vi. 
20,  and  itself  constituted  a  part  of  the  reason  why  the 
disciples  were  willing  to  take  Jesus  into  the  boat,  for 
it  reassured  them  that  what  they  saw  was  really  the 
Lord.  The  following  statement  that  they  were  imme- 
diately at  land  after  Jesus  entered  the  boat,  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  construed  to  mean  that,  before  He  entered  it, 
they  were  so  near  to  land  that  there  was  no  room  for 
Peter's  act.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  six  rods  of  lake 
would  amply  meet  the  requirements  of  the  narrative, 
and  on  the  other,  the  statement  of  John  that  they  were 
immediately  at  land,  would  be  natural  enough  even  if 
they  rowed  fifty  or  a  hundred  rods.  After  hours  of 
conflict  with  the  waves,  a  quiet  row  of  fifty  or  a  hundred 
rods,  with  Jestts  on  board,  would  seem  as  nothing. 

The  narrative  certainly  has  this  in  its  favor  that  it 
accords  with  the  character  of  Peter.  It  was  like  him 
to  try  to  walk  on  the  water,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether 
any  one  would  have  thought  of  inventing  such  a  daring 
deed  of  faith.^ 

In  the  Capernanm  Synagogue. 

The  day  following  the  miracle  at  Bethsaida,  Jesus 
was  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  and  spoke  to 
some  of  the  people  who  had  wished  to  take  Him  by 
force  and  make  Him  king  (John  vi.  25-58).     His  words 

1  Matt.  xiv.  33  seems  to  be  at  variance  with  Mark  vi.  51,  52.  Inward 
amazement,  due  to  a  failure  to  understand  the  act  of  Jesus,  does  not 
agree  with  outward  recognition  of  Him  as  Messiah. 


174  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE.  OF  JESUS 

now  dampened  their  enthusiasm  as  much  as  His  miracle 
on  the  day  before  had  aroused  it.  He  represented 
Himself  as  the  bread  out  of  heaven,  better  than  the 
manna  of  Moses.  When  the  Jews  murmured  because 
He  said  that  He  had  come  do^vn  out  of  heaven,  He 
went  on  and  expressed  His  thought  more  explicitly,  say- 
ing that  His  flesh  was  the  true  bread,  and  that  unless  a 
man  ate  it  he  could  not  have  eternal  life.  As  they  had 
no  spiritual  apprehension  of  Christ's  meaning,  they 
were  yet  more  offended  by  this  word.  Many  of  those 
who  had  been  His  disciples  left  Him  in  consequence  of 
this  address  in  the  synagogue  (John  vi.  66).  He  was 
not  at  all  the  Messiah  of  their  hopes,  but  seemed  rather 
as  a  dreamer. 

The  turning  from  Jesus  at  this  time  was  so  general 
that  He  asked  the  t\velve  whether  they,  also,  would  go 
away  (John  vi.  66,  6f).  He  was  determined  to  know 
who,  if  any  one,  was  still  true  to  Him.  It  must  have  been 
very  plain  to  Jesus  at  this  time  that  He  could  not  hope 
to  win  the  Galileans  in  large  numbers.  With  few  excep- 
tions, they  had  no  hunger  for  the  bread  that  He  offered, 
and  He  could  not  awaken  this  hunger.  Yet  He  did 
not  at  once  withdraw  wholly  from  public  work  in 
Galilee. 

Last  Public  Work  in  Galilee. 

There  was  a  short  interval  between  the  critical  day  in 
Capernaum  and  Jesus'  retirement  from  Gahlee  to  the 
north   (Mark   vii.    24),    and    in   it    He    continued    His 


THE   LATER  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 75 

public  Messianic  work,  though  this  was  mingled  now 
with  words  of  judgment.  In  this  interval  we  have 
the  last  public  cures  which  were  wrought  in  Galilee. 
The  isolated  miracles  of  the  later  weeks  were  in 
private. 

Mark  seems  to  epitomize  a  tour  of  Jesus  through 
the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  and  perhaps  beyond  its  bor- 
ders (Mark  vi.  53-56).  He  speaks  of  His  visiting 
villages  and  cities  and  country  seats.  The  memorable 
feature  of  the  tour  was  the  healing  of  the  sick.  The 
impression  is  that  Jesus  met  the  multitudinous  calls  for 
physical  help  in  the  same  bountiful  manner  that  had 
characterized  His  earlier  Galilean  ministry.  The  cry  of 
His  heart,  now  as  then,  must  have  been  that  the  eyes 
of  people  might  be  opened  to  see  what  His  signs  really 
meant,  and  that  they  might  come  to  Him  for  soul  rest 
as  well  as  for  bodily  healing  (Matt.  xi.  28). 

This  last  tour  is  touched  very  briefly  by  Mark  and 
Matthew  (Mark  vi.  53-56;  Matt.  xiv.  34-36).  It 
seems  to  have  begun  at  least  on  the  northwest  shore 
of  the  lake,  but  the  language  of  Mark  suggests, 
as  we  have  seen,  that  it  was  continued  elsewhere. 
Wherever  Jesus  went,  people  had  one  desire  only, 
as  had  been  the  case  with  the  masses  all  along, 
and  that  desire  was  for  material  help.  They  brought 
Him  their  sick,  but  no  one  ever  asked  Him  for 
forgiveness  of  sins. 

In  the  days  of  this  last  public  tour  in  GaHlee  we  may 
most  probably  put  the  words  of  condemnation  over  the 


1/6  THE   STUDENT'S    LIFE   OF  JESUS 

lake  cities  (Matt.  xi.  20-24;  Luke  x.  13-16),  and  per- 
haps, also,  the  stern  words  which  Jesus  spoke  to  His 
disciples  about  the  cost  of  following  Him  (Matt.  x.  17- 
38  ;  Luke  xiv.  28-33).     These  words  suit  this  time. 

Of  the  cities  mentioned,  Chorazin  appears  here  and 
nowhere  else  in  the  Gospels.  Its  site  has  been  identified 
with  the  ruins  of  Kerazeh,  two  and  a  half  miles  north 
from  Tell  Hum.^  Mighty  works  had  been  done  there 
by  Jesus,  but  what  they  were,  or  when  they  were 
wrought,  we  do  not  know.  The  woes  spoken  by  Jesus 
over  Chorazin,  Capernaum,  and  Bethsaida  contain  His 
estimate  of  the  value  of  His  labors  in  these  unrepent- 
ant cities.  Capernaum  had  been,  as  it  were,  exalted 
to  heaven  in  privilege.  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin  had 
closed  their  eyes  to  deeds  so  manifestly  Messianic  that 
they  had  made  their  sin  greater  than  that  of  the  heathen 
Tyre  and  Sidon. 

In  these  last  days  before  Jesus  retired  from  Galilee 
we  are  to  place,  also,  a  meeting  between  Him  and  cer- 
tain Pharisees  and  scribes  who  came  down  from  Jeru- 
salem (Mark  vii.  1-23  ;  Matt.  xv.  1-20).  The  place  of 
this  encounter  is  not  indicated.  These  men  had  plainly 
come  from  Jerusalem  with  hostile  intent,  and  from 
their  coming  we  may  infer  that  the  recent  visit  of 
Jesus  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Purim  had  stirred 
up  the  adversaries  afresh,  and  impressed  them  anew 
with  the  dangerous  character  of  their  Galilean  rival. 
The  point  on  which  they  challenged  Jesus  was  the 

1  Wilson  and  Warren,  The  Recovery  of  Jerusalem,  p.  270. 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN    MINISTRY  1 77 

non-observance  by  His  disciples  of  the  traditional  rules 
of  purification  (Mark  vii.  5).  As  at  an  early  day  they 
had  neglected  the  Pharisaic  fasts  (Mark  ii.  18-22),  so 
now  they  neglect  the  ceremonial  washing  of  the  hands 
before  eating,  on  which  the  Pharisees  laid  great  stress. 
Under  the  influence  of  Jesus,  but  apparently  without 
any  positive  command  from  Him,  the  disciples  dropped 
Pharisaic  ceremonialism,  as  at  a  later  day,  under  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  they  gradually  dropped  the  cere- 
monialism of  the  Old  Testament  itself. 

Jesus  in  His  reply  to  the  Pharisees  declared  that 
their  traditions  were  in  direct  violation  of  the  law  of 
God.  This  required,  for  example,  that  children  should 
honor  their  parents ;  but  tradition  allowed  children  to 
dishonor  father  and  mother  by  giving  to  the  temple 
what  belonged  of  right  to  them  (Mark  vii.  10-13). 
These  traditions  of  the  scribes  were  plants  which  His 
heavenly  Father  had  not  planted  (Matt.  xv.  13),  and  it 
was  His  purpose  that  they  should  be  rooted  up.  Then, 
in  the  hearing  of  the  multitude,  He  declared  that  nothing 
from  without  could  defile  a  man,  but  only  the  things 
from  within.  It  followed  from  this,  of  course,  that  a 
man  could  not  be  defiled  who  ate  food  which  he  had 
touched  with  unwashed  hands.  This  saying  scandalized 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  perplexed  even  the  dis- 
ciples (Matt.  XV.  12;  Mark  vii.  17).  It  was  a  sort  of 
riddle  to  them,  which  He  afterward  explained.  He  said 
that  He  meant  defilement  of  the  heart,  that  nothing 
from  without  could  defile  this.     He  did  not,  therefore, 


178  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

put  Himself  in  antagonism  with  the  Levitical  law,  for 
this  law  did  not  prohibit  certain  kinds  of  food,  on  the 
ground  that  they  defiled  the  heart.^ 

Alone  luitJi  tJie  Disciples. 

The  experience  of  Jesus  with  the  multitude  whom  He 
had  fed  and  His  experience  the  next  day  in  Capernaum 
made  it  painfully  clear  that  the  Galileans,  for  whom  He 
had  wrought  and  taught  during  several  months,  would 
not  accept  Him.  His  ministry  for  them  was  practically 
ended.  He  knew  well  that  He  could  hope  for  little 
from  any  future  work  in  Judea,  where  the  Jews  had 
already  sought  to  kill  Him  (John  v.  18),  and  whence 
they  had  sent  emissaries  to  thwart  and  if  possible  ruin 
Him  in  Galilee  (Mark  vii.  i).  So  the  thought  of  the 
outcome  of  His  own  personal  ministry  must  have 
become  more  and  more  definite,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  thought  of  the  continuation  of  His  work  by  His 
disciples  must  have  assumed  increasing  prominence 
in  His  mind.  And,  indeed,  from  this  time  on  we  find 
that  He  devotes  Himself  much  more  than  formerly  to 
His  disciples.  Hence  we  are  to  hold  that  the  chief 
purpose  of  His  present  retirement  to  Gentile  soil  was 
that  He  might  be  alone  with  His  disciples.  This  is 
confirmed  by  the  remark  of  the  second  evangelist  that 
when  Jesus  came  into  the  borders  of  Tyre  He  did  not 
wish  to  have  it  known  (Mark  vii.  24). 

1  It  is  possible,  though  not  certain,  that  the  author  of  the  second  Gos- 
pel thought  that  Jesus,  by  His  words  on  this  occasion,  abolished  Levitical 
ordinances  (Mark  vii.  19). 


THE  LATER  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 79 

Jesus  passed  through  some  part  of  the  territory  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon  (Mark  vii.  31),  then  probably  took  some 
Damascus  route  over  or  around  the  southern  end  of  the 
Lebanon  range,  and  then  followed  some  southerly  road 
which  brought  Him  at  last  to  the  east  coast  of  Lake 
Galilee  (Mark  vii.  31).  This  tour,  reckoning  from 
Capernaum,  may  have  been  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles 
in  length,  and  must  of  necessity  have  occupied  several 
days,  and  may  have  occupied  weeks. 

On  the  border  of  Gentile  territory  Jesus  wrought  the 
first  miracle  in  behalf  of  a  heathen  (Mark  vii.  24-30 ; 
Matt.  XV.  21-28).  He  had  healed  the  servant  of  the  cen- 
turion in  Capernaum  (Matt.  viii.  5),  but  it  is  quite  probable 
that  this  centurion  was  a  proselyte.  Now  a  Syrophoeni- 
cian  woman  implored  Him  to  heal  her  daughter.  Jesus 
was  not  inclined  to  hear  the  woman's  prayer,  but  her 
faith  and  humility  prevailed  with  Him,  and  He  granted 
her  request.  In  His  saying  that  it  was  not  meet  to  take 
children's  bread  and  cast  it  to  dogs.  He  did  not  lower 
Himself  to  the  level  of  Jewish  prejudice  and  call  the 
woman  a  Gentile  dog.  This  interpretation  of  the 
words  would  be  wholly  contrary  to  the  gentleness  and 
breadth  of  Jesus'  sympathy.  But  He  declared  in  a 
figurative  manner  that  it  would  be  inappropriate  for 
Him  to  enter  on  Messianic  activity  among  the  heathen. 
He  was  sent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel 
(Matt.  XV.  24).  Therefore,  were  He  to  work  miracles 
of  healing  for  the  Gentiles,  as  this  woman  requested, 
it  would   be    as  much   out  of   order   as   for  a  man  to 


l80  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

take  his  children's  bread  and  cast  it  to  dogs.  The 
time  had  not  yet  come  to  give  the  Gospel  to  the 
Gentiles. 

Woi'k  in  the  Decapolis. 

Arrived  on  the  east  of  the  lake,  in  the  territory  of 
Philip,  in  a  region  where  He  had  not  been,  unless  in- 
deed it  was  the  region  of  Gerza,  where  He  had  healed 
the  demonized  one  (Mark  v.  1-20),  Jesus  now  tarried 
some  time  after  His  northern  tour.  At  first  He  may 
have  had  comparative  quiet  with  His  disciples,  but  later 
He  engaged  again  in  public  activity.  His  desire  for 
privacy  is  seen  in  the  circumstances  of  His  healing  a 
deaf  and  dumb  man  (Mark  vii.  32-36).  He  took  him 
away  by  himself  —  though  the  disciples  may  well  have 
been  present  —  and,  having  healed  the  man.  He  enjoined 
those  who  knew  of  the  miracle  not  to  tell  any  one. 
But,  as  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  so  now.  His 
injunction  was  disregarded,  the  cure  was  proclaimed 
through  that  region,  and  we  next  see  Jesus  surrounded 
by  crowds  of  people  (Mark  vii.  36;  viii.  i;  Matt.  xv.  30). 
According  to  Matthew,  He  wrought  many  cures  (xv. 
30,  31).  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  Jesus  was  forced 
into  activity  against  His  will,  but  that  He  was  moved 
by  the  condition  of  the  people  to  minister  unto  them  in 
word  and  deed,  and  that  He  did  this  in  hope  of  winning 
disciples. 

Matthew  and  Mark  put  into  these  days  of  the  Decap- 
olis sojourn  the  miracle  of  feeding  four  thousand  (Mark 


THE   LATER  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  i8l 

viii.  i-io;  Matt.  xv.  32-39).  Some  writers^  identify  this 
miracle  with  the  feeding  of  five  thousand  which  is  re- 
corded by  all  the  evangelists.  It  is  said  that  the  diver- 
gencies are  incidental,  that  the  disciples  could  not  have 
been  so  helpless  a  second  time,  if  Jesus  had  already 
wrought  one  miracle  of  feeding,  and  that  the  conse- 
quences of  the  iirst  miracle  would  have  deterred  Jesus 
from  repeating  it.  But  are  the  divergencies  incidental  ? 
Some  are,  as  the  differences  in  the  number  of  loaves 
and  the  number  of  the  people  present,  but  some  are 
not.  Thus  the  story  of  feeding  four  thousand  implies 
a  dijferent  place  from  that  where  the  five  thousand  had 
been  fed.  In  the  record  of  the  first  miracle  of  feeding, 
it  is  intimated  that  the  disciples  could  get  food  if  they 
had  money ;  while  in  the  second  story  the  difficulty  is 
said  to  be  that  the  place  was  desert,  and  that  conse- 
quently they  could  not  readily  find  food  even  if  they 
had  money  (Mark  viii.  2).  Difference  of  place  is  also 
favored  by  the  fact  that  in  the  story  of  the  second  mira- 
cle both  evangelists  use  a  word  for  basket  different  from 
that  which  is  used  alike  by  all  four  evangelists  in  the 
account  of  the  feeding  of  five  thousand.  This  is  a  very 
curious  circumstance.  In  the  story  of  the  first  miracle 
all  the  evangelists  use  a  particular  Greek  word  for  basket 
(fc6(j)Lvo<;),  and  in  the  story  of  the  second  both  writers 
who  give  it  use  another  word  {a-irvpi'^).  Later,  when 
Jesus  refers  to  the  two  miracles  and  asks  how  many 

1  E.g.,  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesn,  II.  19 1  ;   Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I. 
3io»3ii- 


1 82  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

baskets  of  fragments  the  disciples  took  up,  He  is  repre- 
sented as  using  both  words  as  they  had  been  used  in 
the  two  stories  (Mark  viii.  19,  20;  Matt.  xvi.  9,  10). 
The  explanation  of  this  fact,  which  I  offer,  is  that  the 
two  miracles  were  wrought  in  different  localities,  each 
of  which  had  its  own  pecuHar  name  for  basket,  and 
that  these  local  names  clung  to  the  accounts  of  the 
respective  miracles  from  the  first.  Such  a  local  differ- 
ence may  readily  be  assumed  to  have  existed  between 
the  speech  of  the  Galileans  from  the  region  of  Caper- 
naum and  the  people  who  lived  on  the  eastern  side  of 
the  lake. 

This  difference  of  scene,  of  which  we  have  spoken, 
removes  the  objection  that  the  consequence  of  the  first 
miracle  would  have  deterred  Jesus  from  working  a  sec- 
ond one  like  it.  The  five  thousand  were  Galileans  from 
the  west  side  of  the  lake,  while  the  four  thousand  were 
natives  of  Decapolis  on  the  east  side.  Because  the 
miracle  by  Bethsaida  Julias  had  caused  intense  excite- 
ment, in  which  the  people  wished  to  take  Jesus  by 
force  and  make  Him  king,  it  did  not  follow  that  a  simi- 
lar miracle  would  have  the  same  effect  upon  the  people 
of  Decapolis. 

The  objection  that  the  disciples  could  not  have  been 
so  helpless  in  a  second  time  of  need  is  refuted  by 
their  experience  in  general.  Immediately  after  the 
first  miracle  of  feeding,  when  Jesus  wrought  the  sign 
of  walking  on  the  lake,  it  is  explicitly  said  that  the 
disciples  were  amazed  and  understood  not   concerning 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 83 

the  loaves  (Mark  vi.  52).  With  them  also,  as  with  men 
of  all  times,  it  was  easy  to  forget  past  deliverances,  and 
hard  to  beheve  in  divine  interposition  in  their  behalf. 
Hence,  while  admitting  the  possibility  that  two  widely 
varying  versions  of  one  historical  event  might  have  been 
adopted  by  the  Synoptists,  I  see  no  adequate  reason  for 
the  view  that  these  are  duplicates.  And  it  is  just  as 
easy  to  suppose  that  Jesus  on  two  occasions  would  feed 
the  hungry  as  that  He  would  twice  heal  the  sick. 

Matthew  and  Mark  agree  that  Jesus  embarked  after 
the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand,  but  Matthew  says  He 
came  into  the  borders  of  Magadan  (Matt.  xv.  39),  while 
Mark  says  that  He  came  into  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha 
(Mark  viii.    10).      The  site  of  Magadan  is  wholly  un- 
known, since  it  is  manifestly  not  to  be  identified  with 
Magdala,    which   was   on   the   west   side  of    the   lake. 
Dalmanutha  is  located  by  Robinson,    Thompson,    and 
others,  on  the  south  side  of   Lake  Galilee,  about  one 
mile  north  of  the  Jarmuk  River.i      The  village  which 
now  bears  the  name  Delhemija  is  supposed  to  occupy 
the  site  of  the  ancient  Dalmanutha.      There  may  have 
been  a  Magadan  in  the  same  district,   and,  as  Weiss 
suggests,  Matthew  may  have  chosen  this  name  as  more 
familiar  to  his  readers. 

That  the  place  to  which  Jesus  went  after  the  miracle 
was  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  may  have  confirmation 
in  the  incidental  statement  of  Mark  viii.  11,  that  the 
Pharisees   came  forth   to   meet   Jesus.      This  may  be 

1  Henderson,  Palestine,  p.  160. 


1 84  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

explained  as  coming  forth  from  what  they  considered 
to  be  the  holy  land  west  of  the  Jordan,  into  the  semi- 
Gentile  region  of  Decapolis.  There  is  also  positive 
evidence  in  Mark's  narrative  that  he  did  not  put 
Dalmanutha  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake.  In 
Mark  viii.  13,  after  the  sojourn  at  Dalmanutha,  it  is 
said  that  Jesus  and  His  disciples  went  to  tJie  other  side. 
Now,  if  Dalmanutha  was  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake, 
this  transit  must  have  been  to  the  east  side.  But  this 
is  impossible.  For  in  Mark  viii.  22,  while  Jesus  and 
His  disciples  are  on  this  otJier  side,  they  come  to  a 
Bethsaida,  and  He  heals  a  bhnd  man,  but  in  as  private 
a  manner  as  possible  (Mark  viii.  23,  26).  Now  such 
privacy  is  not  intelligible  if  Jesus  was  on  the  east  side 
of  the  lake,  for  He  had  just  wrought  miracles  there  in 
the  most  public  way.  But  it  is  wholly  intelligible  if  the 
Bethsaida  in  question  was  the  western  Bethsaida,  for 
Jesus  had  finished  His  public  Messianic  work  in  Galilee, 
and  had  spoken  the  doom  of  this  very  Bethsaida  (Matt. 
xi.  20-24). 

The  Pharisees  who  came  forth  to  meet  Jesus  (Mark 
viii.  11),  may  have  been  from  Jerusalem,  like  those  who 
had  recently  followed  Him  to  Galilee  (Mark  vii.  i). 
In  this  case  we  must  suppose  that  Jesus  had  been  on 
the  east  side  of  the  lake  long  enough  for  the  Pharisees 
in  Jerusalem  to  locate  Him.  It  is  plain  that  they  came 
with  evil  intent.  They  wanted  a  sign  from  heaven, 
naturally  a  sign  that  should  prove  beyond  a  doubt  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.      Of  course  they  did  not  believe 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  185 

that  He  could  give  such  a  sign,  and  they  hoped  to 
use  against  Him  His  failure  to  comply  with  their 
request.  This  demand  of  the  Pharisees,  made  in  the 
face  of  all  the  great  miracles  of  Jesus,  and  in  the  face 
of  His  divine  teaching,  showed  their  irremediable 
spiritual  blindness,  and  called  forth  from  Jesus  severe 
words  regarding  them  and  the  generation  in  general. 
He  refused  the  sign  which  they  sought,  a  sign  to  con- 
vince hostile  unbelief,  but  intimated  that  a  sign  would 
be  given  at  some  future  day,  even  the  sign  of  Jonah 
(Matt.  xii.  38-42  ;  xvi.  4 ;  Luke  xi.  29-32). 

But  although  Jesus  refused  the  desired  sign,  He  did 
not  leave  His  hearers  without  intimating  who  He  was 
and  how  vital  was  a  right  relation  to  Him.  In  their 
midst.  He  said,  was  one  greater  than  Jonah  and  greater 
than  Solomon.  Hence  the  Ninevites  who  repented  at 
the  preaching  of  Jonah,  and  the  Queen  of  the  South 
who  profited  by  the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  would  rise  up 
in  the  judgment  against  them. 

From  Dalmaniitha  to  Ccesarea  Philippi. 

When  Jesus  left  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha  and  came 
to  the  west  side  of  the  lake  (Mark  viii.  13),  it  was 
not  with  the  purpose  of  resuming  work  in  Galilee. 
Apparently  He  remained  but  a  short  time  before 
leaving  for  the  north.  He  wrought  a  miracle  near 
Bethsaida  (Mark  viii.  22),  but  did  it  with  the  utmost 
secrecy.  He  did  not  wish  to  have  His  presence  known, 
for  He  regarded  His  public  work  in  Galilee  as  ended. 


1 86  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

On  the  way  across  the  lake,  as  Jesus  came  from  the 
Decapolis,  He  warned  His  disciples  against  the  leaven 
of  the  Pharisees  and  Herod  (Matt.  xvi.  5-12 ;  Mark  viii. 
14-21).  This  warning  seems  to  have  been  occasioned 
by  the  embarrassment  of  the  disciples,  who  had  for- 
gotten to  provide  food  for  their  journey  (Mark  viii.  14). 
Jesus  wanted  to  speak  a  word  of  warning  to  them,  and 
the  circumstance  that  they  were  without  bread  fur- 
nished the  desired  opportunity,  and  also  suggested 
the  figure  in  which  He  put  His  thought.  He  speaks 
of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  Herod,  and 
according  to  Matthew  the  disciples  understood  that 
leaven  signified  teaching  (Matt.  xvi.  12).  Yet  we  do 
not  know  of  any  formal  teaching  of  the  Pharisees  which 
the  disciples  were  in  danger  of  accepting,  and  in  the 
case  of  Herod  we  cannot  think  of  anything  like  formal 
teaching.  The  word  leaven  is  therefore  to  be  taken 
in  the  sense  of  controlling  spirit.  The  leaven  of  the 
Pharisees  is  their  unbelief,  strikingly  illustrated  in  the 
recent  days  spent  near  Dalmanutha;  the  leaven  of 
Herod  also  may  be  thought  of  as  the  spirit  of  unbelief. 
Herod  had  not  come  in  contact  with  Jesus,  but  he  had 
met  the  forerunner  of  Jesus  and  had  put  him  to  death. 
We  learn  later  that  he  sought  the  death  of  Jesus  (Luke 
xiii.  31).  The  warning  of  Jesus  suggests  that  there  was 
danger  lest  some  of  the  twelve  disciples  should  become 
unbeHeving.  The  recent  experiences  in  Capernaum 
(John  vi.  66-71),  when  many  disciples  forsook  Jesus, 
and  when,  according  to  John,  the  alienation  of  Judas 


THE  LATER  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  187 

began,  and  the  patent  fact  that  the  Galileans  as  a 
whole  found  in  Jesus  great  reason  of  stumbling  (Matt. 
xi.  6),  —  these  things  gave  ample  ground  for  the 
warning  to  the  twelve. 

Near  CiESAREA  Philippi. 

The   Test  Question. 

In  the  next  days,  when  Jesus  had  come  into  the 
region  of  Caesarea  Philippi  —  about  twenty-five  miles 
due  north  from  Capernaum  —  He  followed  up  His 
warning  with  a  test  question  (Mark  viii.  27,  29 ;  Matt. 
xvi.  13,  15).  He  led  up  to  this  question  by  asking 
what  people  in  general  were  thinking  and  saying  about 
Him  (Mark  viii.  27;  Matt.  xvi.  13;  Luke  ix.  18).  The 
answer  of  the  disciples  is  most  instructive,  and  shows 
how  Jesus  fell  below  the  popular  expectation  regarding 
the  Messiah.  Some  said  that  He  was  the  Baptist, 
others  Elijah,  others  Jeremiah,  and  still  others,  whose 
estimate  of  Him  was  less  exalted,  said  that  He  was 
one  of  the  prophets  (Mark  viii.  28  ;  Matt.  xvi.  14).  The 
popular  idea  seems  to  have  been  that  the  spirit  of  one 
of  these  worthies  had  returned  to  earth  and  was  work- 
ing in  Jesus  (comp.  Mark  vi.  14).  But  in  any  case  the 
answers  show  that  people  regarded  Jesus  only  as  the 
forerunner  of  the  Messiah,  not  as  the  Messiah  Himself. 

Then  came  the  test  question  to  the  disciples.  This 
was  not  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  a  hitherto  unex- 
pressed belief  in  His  Messiahship,  for  their  beHef  that 
He  was  the  Messiah  had  already  had  varied  expression; 


1 88  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

but  to  ascertain  whether  they  still  believed  in  Him.  In 
the  recent  weeks,  it  had  become  plain  that  the  Galileans 
as  a  whole  would  not  accept  Him,  and  many  even  of 
His  disciples  had  turned  away  from  Him.  People  who 
had  previously  thought  that  He  might  be  the  Messiah 
were  now  saying  that  He  was  John  the  Baptist,  or 
Elijah,  or  one  of  the  prophets.  Jesus  wished  to  know 
whether  the  twelve  were  losing  faith  in  Him,  and  the 
confession  of  Peter,  who  acted  as  spokesman  of  the 
twelve,  simply  meant  that  he  still  held  Jesus  to  be 
the  Messiah.  It  is  not  a  confession  of  a  new  faith,  but 
of  loyalty  to  an  old  one.  This  does  not  imply  that  their 
conception  of  the  Messiah  had  remained  unchanged 
from  the  first.  That  was  surely  not  the  case.  If  they 
now  believed  Him  to  be  the  Messiah,  they  must  have 
given  up  their  early  Jewish  conception  in  some  respects, 
and  must  have  admitted  into  their  picture  of  the  Mes- 
siah some  new  and  strange  features.  But  the  main 
fact  which  the  question  of  Jesus  brings  out  is  this,  that 
while  others  are  leaving  Him,  they  still  believe  in  Him. 
The  name  Peter,  which  Jesus  had  early  given  to 
Simon  (John  i.  42),  is  by  Peter's  confession  shown  to 
have  been  rightly  given.  He  has  remained  firm  as  a 
rock  while  others  have  been  as  sand.  Jesus  recognized 
that  this  firmness  of  faith  was  from  God  (Matt.  xvi.  17). 
For  it  rested  upon  a  spiritual  apprehension  of  Jesus,  not 
upon  any  evidence  that  He  would  yet  fulfil  the  popular 
conception  of  the  Messiah.  It  was  a  faith  in  Him,  as 
one  sent  from  God,  and  love  for  Him ;  and  because  it 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  189 

rested  wholly  upon  the  person  of  Jesus,  it  endured  in 
the  face  of  outward  failure. 

This  rock-man,  not  as  an  individual,  but  as  a  type, 
Jesus  says  shall  be  the  basis  of  His  church  ^  (Matt.  xvi. 
18).  The  narrative  implies  that  the  other  apostles,  no 
less  than  Peter,  still  held  to  Jesus,  and  what  Jesus 
addressed  to  Peter  was  therefore  addressed  to  the  Peter- 
spirit  in  all.  This  is  perfectly  confirmed  by  the  subse- 
quent narrative  and  by  the  apostolic  history.  For 
Peter  was  not  recognized  subsequently  as  having  any 
official  primacy.  He  was  treated  by  Jesus  exactly  as 
were  the  other  apostles.  For  him,  as  for  all,  there  was 
one  law  of  greatness  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  law  of 
service  (Mark  ix.  35).  And  later  he  was  not  the  head 
of  the  church,  but  only  one  of  tJiree  pillars  (Gal.  ii.  9). 
What  is  promised  him  by  Jesus  is  promised  him  as  the 
first  representative  of  those  who  should  have  the  same 
rock-faith  in  Jesus.  He  and  they,  as  Christ's  represen- 
tatives, should  bear  His  Gospel  to  men,  and  thus  have 
the  key  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Matt.  xvi.  19).  He 
and  they,  as  the  representatives  of  Jesus,  should  have 
power  to  loose  and  bind  (Matt.  xvi.  19),^  that  is,  they 
should  be  authoritative  teachers  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus. 
It  is  apparently  this  same  authority  which  Jesus,  after 
His  resurrection,  assured  to  all  His  disciples,  not  to 
the  eleven  merely,  but  to  others  as  well  (Luke  xxiv.  33  ; 

1  On  this  word  see  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  pp.  51,  52. 

2  Wiinsche,  Erl'diUerung  der  Evangelien  aus  Talmud  und  Midrasch^ 
pp.  196,  197. 


IQO  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

John  XX.  23).  They  all,  as  far  as  they  have  His  spirit 
(John  XX.  22),  are  the  norm  of  truth,  and  declare  with 
authority  the  conditions  of  forgiveness  of  sin. 

The  Announcement  of  Death  and  Resurrection. 

The  disciples'  confession  of  loyalty  to  Jesus  prepared 
the  way  for  Him  to  speak  to  them  openly  of  His 
approaching  death  (Mark  viii.  31-32;  Matt.  xvi.  21; 
Luke  ix.  22).  Their  personal  attachment  to  Him  had 
become  so  strong  that  this  terrible  announcement  could 
be  made  without  causing  them  to  stumble.  Jesus  did 
not  refer  to  His  death  for  the  first  time  at  Csesarea 
Philippi.  He  had  alluded  to  it  before  in  more  or  less 
obscure  terms.  He  had  spoken  of  the  removal  of  the 
bridegroom  (Mark  ii.  20),  of  the  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple of  His  body  (John  ii.  19),  and  of  the  sign  of  Jonah 
(Matt.  xii.  39,  40).^  But  not  until  the  days  at  Caesarea 
Philippi  did  He  speak  plainly  and  unmistakably  of  His 
death.  It  may  well  be  that  while  He  had  hitherto 
known  that  His  way  would  be  one  of  suffering.  He  had 
not  Himself  seen  clearly,  as  He  did  now,  that  He  was 
to  be  put  to  death.  The  unfolding  of  this  thought  may 
have  come  gradually  with  the  experiences  of  the  Mes- 
sianic work.  GaHlee  had  rejected  Him.  Jerusalem 
had  rejected  Him.  The  Son  of  man  must  now  suffer 
many  things,  and  be  officially  rejected  by  the  Sanhedrin, 
and  be  put  to  death. 

The  announcement  by  Jesus  of  His  death  disclosed 

1  John  hi.  14  ;   vi.  51  are  perhaps  to  be  added. 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  I9I 

the  fact  that,  although  Peter  was  loyal,  he  was  still 
ignorant.  If  he  had  risen  somewhat  above  the  nar- 
row Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah,  he  had  not  yet 
reached  Jesus'  conception.  He  could  not  yet  associate 
death  with  his  Messiah  ;  and  that  was  doubtless  equally 
true  of  the  other  disciples.  Therefore  from  this  time 
forward  Jesus  spoke  with  them  again  and  again  con- 
cerning His  death.  Two  other  occasions  are  specified 
in  which  He  made  substantially  the  same  announce- 
ment (Mark  ix.  30-32  ;  x.  32-34 ;  Matt.  xvii.  22,  23  ;  xx. 
17-19;  Luke  ix.  43-45;  xviii.  31-34)-  The  second  of 
the  three  was  just  before  leaving  Galilee,  and  the  third 
was  in  Perea. 

Every  time  that  Jesus  formally  announced  His  death 
to  His  disciples,  He  announced  also  His  resurrection, 
thus    binding    up  with    hope  the   hearts  that  He  had 
wounded.     He  had  referred  to  His  resurrection  before 
this  time,  but  only  in  dark  sayings  (John  ii.  19;  Luke 
xi.    30).      The    certainty   of    resurrection,    and    so    of 
triumph  over  the  enemy,  was  involved  in  the  very  con- 
sciousness that  He  was  the  Messiah.     He  saw  clearly 
that  He  was  to  be  put  to  death,  and  that  His  cause 
would  apparently  fail,  but  He  knew  in  His  inmost  soul 
that  He  should  yet  overcome,  because  He  knew  that  He 
was  the  Messiah.    As  such  He  must  yet  see  the  pleasure 
of  the  Lord  prospering  in  His  hand,  and  be  satisfied  by 
seeing  the  justification  of  many  as  a  fruit  of  the  travail 
of    His    soul  (Isa.  liii.   10,  11).     When  He  announced 
the  suffering  of  His  own  way,  He  also  announced  that 


192  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

the  way  of  his  disciples  would  be  one  of  suffering 
(Mark  viii.  34,  35  ;  Matt.  xvi.  24,  25  ;  Luke  ix.  23,  24). 
Discipleship  meant  self-denial,  the  bearing  by  each  one 
of  his  own  cross,  the  wiUingness  to  lose  life  for  Christ's 
sake.  In  the  meantime  they  should  be  sustained  in  the 
loss  of  all  things,  and  deterred  from  endangering  the 
welfare  of  their  souls,  by  the  prospect  of  His  returning 
in  glory,  when  He  would  own  the  faithful  and  disown 
the  unfaithful  (Mark  viii.  38).  But  before  that,  some  of 
them  at  least  would  witness  a  powerful  estabHshment 
of  His  kingdom,  whose  fortunes  were  now  at  so  low  an 
ebb  (Mark  ix.  i  ;  Luke  ix.  27). 

The  Transfiguration. 

The  first  announcement  by  Jesus  of  His  death  was 
deeply  stamped  on  the  memory  of  the  disciples,  like- 
wise the  transfiguration,  which  was  known  to  have 
occurred  six  days  later.^  No  importance  attaches  to 
the  earthly  scene  of  the  transfiguration,  yet  it  is  a 
matter  of  interest.  The  connection  in  which  it  occurs 
suggests  that  it  transpired  in  the  vicinity  of  Csesarea 
PhiHppi,  and  this  is  confirmed  by  Mark  ix.  30-33.  From 
the  mount  of  transfiguration  they  went  to  Capernaum, 
and  this  journey  took  them  through  Galilee.  This 
language  excludes  the  traditional  view  that  the  trans- 
figuration was  upon  Mount  Tabor,  west  of  the  lower 
part  of  the  lake. 

1  Luke  seems  not  to  have  learned  from  his  source  either  the  place  or 
the  exact  time  of  the  transfiguration  (Luke  ix.  i8,  28), 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 93 

The  place  of  the  transfiguration  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
is  far  more  important  than  its  geographical  location. 
It  came  in  connection  with  the  first  explicit  announce- 
ment of  His  suffering  and  death,  that  is,  it  came  in 
connection  with  the  thought  which,  more  than  any 
other  uttered  by  Jesus,  perplexed  the  disciples.  This 
fact  has  a  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  the  event. 

Mark  and  Matthew  say  that  Jesus  was  transfigured 
(fierefjiopcpcoOr]),  which  means  for  them  that  His  gar- 
ments, or  His  garments  and  His  face,  became  very 
bright.  Elias  and  Moses  appeared  to  the  three  disci- 
ples, talking  with  Jesus,  and  the  subject  of  conversation 
was  His  approaching  death  (Luke  ix.  31).  Peter, 
impressed  by  the  scene  and  yet  not  knowing  what  to 
say,  exclaimed  that  they  should  make  three  tabernacles 
there  on  the  mountain,  which  suggests  that  he  was 
thinking  of  a  protracted  stay  (Mark  ix.  5,  6).  Accord- 
ing to  Luke,  this  remark  seems  to  have  been  occa- 
sioned by  the  departure  of  Moses  and  Elijah  (Luke  ix. 
33),  and  was  a  suggestion  that  they  should  remain. 
Then  a  cloud  came  over  them  (Mark  ix.  7),  or  settled 
down  upon  them  (Luke  ix.  34),  and  a  voice  was  heard 
witnessing  of  Jesus,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son  :  hear 
him."  This  word  was  manifestly  for  the  disciples, 
and  not  addressed  to  Jesus.  After  the  voice  the  dis- 
ciples looked  around^  and  saw  Jesus  only  (Mark  ix.  8), 
or  they  lifted  up  their  eyes,  when  Jesus  touched  them 
and  spoke  a  reassuring  word  (Matt.  xvii.  7,  8).  It 
seems  easier,  on  the  whole,  to  regard  the  transfigura- 


194  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

tion  as  a  vision  than  as  an  objective  reality.  The  verb 
which  describes  the  appearance  of  Moses  and  EUjah  is 
regularly  used  of  visionary  phenomena  (axpOrj ;  see,  ^,^., 
Luke  xxiv.  34).  Further,  it  is  not  easy  to  suppose  that 
departed  spirits  could  speak  to  ears  of  flesh,  or  that 
eyes  of  flesh  could  see  the  heavenly  glory  of  Jesus. 
The  voice  out  of  the  cloud  may  best  be  understood  as 
was  the  voice  which  came  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus. 
The  statement  that  the  disciples  looked  around  si^d- 
denly,  and  saw  no  one  but  Jesus,  is  natural  if  at  this 
moment  they  came  out  of  the  visionary  state.  Still 
further  evidence  for  regarding  the  transfiguration  as  a 
vision  is  found  in  the  fact  that  there  seems  to  be  no 
adequate  reason  for  the  manifold  miracle  which  is 
involved  in  the  view  that  the  transfiguration  was  an 
objective  reality.  What  adequate  ground  is  there  for 
calling  the  spirits  of  Moses  and  Elijah  back  to  earth } 
Jesus  did  not  need  anything  which  they  could  give. 
He  understood  the  Old  Testament  better  than  they  did. 
What  adequate  ground  is  there,  again,  for  a  miraculous 
change  in  the  corporeality  of  Jesus  }  If  such  a  change 
took  place,  it  must  apparently  have  been  for  the  sake 
of  the  disciples.  Jesus  certainly  did  not  need  it  in  order 
that  He  might  be  sure  of  His  future  glory.  But  again, 
it  was  not  necessary  on  the  disciples'  behalf,  for  a  vision 
might  convey  to  them  the  very  same  assurance  in 
regard  to  Jesus.  We  may  suppose,  then,  that  the 
disciples  watched  long  with  Jesus,  and  that  they  saw 
His  face  covered  with  unusual  light  while  He  prayed. 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  195 

Then  as  their  eyes  were  heavy  (Luke  ix.  32),  they  fell 
asleep,  and  a  divine  vision  was  granted  unto  them.  In 
this  they  saw  Jesus  glorified,  and  Moses  and  Elijah 
conversing  with  Him.  When  they  came  out  of  the 
vision  in  which  they  had  seen  the  Lord  with  the 
Old  Testament  saints,  they  saw  Jesus  only.  The 
words  of  Peter  about  making  tabernacles  for  Moses, 
Elijah,  and  Jesus,  belonged  to  this  visionary  state, 
just  as  the  words  which  he  spoke  at  a  later  day  on 
a  roof  in  Joppa  (Acts  x.  9-16).  These  were  a  part 
of  the  trance.  Likewise  the  cloud  in  the  transfiguration 
scene  belonged  to  the  vision. 

It  is  not,  however,  of  vital  importance  to  determine 
whether  the  transfiguration  was  something  objective,  or 
was  a  vision.  The  significance  of  it  for  the  disciples 
remains  the  same  in  either  case.  We  may  suppose 
that  it  was  designed  to  teach  them,  first,  that  the  death 
of  the  Messiah  was  in  line  with  the  law  and  the 
prophets;  and  second,  that  it  was  designed  to  be  a 
new  confirmation  that  this  Jesus  with  whom  they  had 
come  up  to  the  mountain  top  was  the  Son  of  God. 
They  heard  Moses  and  Elijah  speaking  with  Jesus 
about  His  death,  which  was  soon  to  be  accomplished 
in  Jerusalem,  and  thus  they  were  taught  that  what 
Jesus  had  recently  said  about  dying  was  a  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  picture  of  the  Messiah.  They  beheld 
Jesus  glorified,  which  may  have  been  to  them  a  pledge 
of  the  fulfilment  of  His  recent  word  to  them  about 
coming  again  in  the  glory  of  the   Father.     The  voice 


196  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

out  of  the  cloud  gave  them  new  assurance  of  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus  (2  Pet.  i.  17-18),  and  reminded  them 
of  their  supreme  obhgation  to  hear  Him. 

If  the  transfiguration  was  a  vision  granted  to  the 
three  disciples,  then  naturally  the  meaning  of  the  hour 
was  for  them  rather  than  for  Jesus.  Yet  the  disciples 
did  not  see  its  significance  at  that  time,  or  saw  it  only 
imperfectly.  They  all  thought  that  Elijah's  appearance 
was  the  fulfilment  of  Malachi  iv.  5  (Mark  ix.  11),  and 
they  were  surprised  that  he  had  not  come  before.  Jesus 
corrected  this  misapprehension  as  they  came  down  from 
the  mountain.  He  told  them  that  the  Elijah  of  whom 
///^j/ were  thinking  had  already  come  (Matt.  xvii.  12,  13). 
He  had  not  restored  all  things  because  the  people  had 
hindered  him,  and  had  finally  done  to  him  what  they 
listed.  But  in  consequence  of  this  very  thing,  the  other 
Scriptures  regarding  the  suffering  of  the  Son  of  man 
would  now  be  fulfilled  (Mark  ix.  12).  Had  all  things 
been  restored,  the  Messiah  would  not  have  needed  to 
suffer.  But  though  they  did  not  at  the  time  fully 
understand  the  vision,  and  apparently  could  not  fully 
understand  it  till  after  the  resurrection  (Mark  ix.  9),  it 
must  have  had  a  permanent  influence  upon  them,  help- 
ing them  toward  an  apprehension  of  the  meaning  of 
Christ's  death,  and  helping  to  sustain  their  personal 
confidence  in  Him  through  the  days  of  awful  suspense, 
in  which  He  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried. 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 97 

At  the  Foot  of  the  Mountain. 

Coming  down  from  the  mountain  of  transfiguration, 
Jesus  found  His  disciples  surrounded  by  a  throng  of 
people  and  confronted  by  a  case  of  illness  which  they 
were  unable  to  cure  (Mark  ix.  14-29;  Matt.  xvii.  14-20; 
Luke  ix.  37-43).  The  crowd  welcomed  Him,  surprised 
and  glad  that  He  had  come  so  opportunely.  On  inquiry, 
Jesus  learned  from  the  father  of  the  boy  what  the  case 
was,  and  after  drawing  the  father  on  to  a  confession  of 
his  little  faith  and  a  prayer  for  more.  He  healed  the 
child  with  a  word.  The  paroxysm  that  followed  this 
word  left  the  boy  completely  exhausted,  so  that  the 
bystanders  said  he  was  dead,  but  Jesus,  taking  his  hand, 
raised  him  up,  and  he  stood. 

The  case  was  unique  in  this  respect  that  the  disciples 
were  unable  to  effect  a  cure.  Jesus  afterward  explained 
their  failure  as  due  to  a  lack  of  prayer  (Mark  ix.  29). 
His  words  imply,  what  is  elsewhere  indicated,  that  it 
was  only  by  prayer  that  He  Himself  was  able  to  effect 
cures  and  cast  out  demons. 

Last  Incidents  in  Galilee. 

Second  Annoiincemeiit  of  His  Death. 

A  secret  journey  through  Galilee  as  far  as  Capernaum 
followed  close  upon  the  transfiguration  (Mark  ix.  30,  33). 
During  this  journey,  perhaps  on  successive  days,i  the 
theme  of  Jesus'  words  was  His  approaching  death. 
The  disciples  were  still  unable  to  understand  the  say- 

1  Note  the  imperfects  idl8a<xKev,  eXcyev  (Mark  ix.  31). 


198  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

ing,  and  it  is  said  that  they  were  afraid  to  ask  for  an 
explanation.  The  reason  of  their  fear  is  not  indicated. 
Perhaps  they  thought  it  would  bring  a  rebuke  from 
Jesus  for  their  dulness ;  more  likely,  however,  they 
were  convinced  that  something  dreadful  was  impend- 
ing, and  shrank  from  a  clearer  view  of  it. 

The  Coin  in  the  Fish's  Mouth. 

On  their  arrival  in  Capernaum,  according  to  Matthew, 
Peter  was  accosted  by  the  tax-gatherers  and  asked 
whether  Jesus  was  not  going  to  pay  the  usual  temple 
tax  (Matt.  xvii.  24).  Peter  at  once  repHed  affirmatively. 
This  indicates  either  that  Peter  knew  of  Jesus'  having 
paid  the  temple  tax  on  former  occasions,  or  that  he  felt 
perfectly  sure  from  Jesus'  general  observance  of  the 
law  that  He  would  in  this  particular  instance  meet  its 
requirement.  The  form  of  the  question  implies  that 
this  tax  was  then  overdue,  and  it  is  possible,  as  Eder- 
sheim  ^  holds,  that  it  was  the  tax  for  the  last  Passover. 
Jesus  was  not  in  Jerusalem  at  that  time,  and  may  not 
have  been  at  His  adopted  home  in  Capernaum,  so  the 
payment  had  not  yet  been  made.  Jesus  appears  to 
have  overheard  the  conversation,  which  may  have  been 
at  the  door  of  Peter's  house,  and  so  when  Peter  came 
in,  Jesus  did  not  wait  for  him  to  introduce  the  subject 
(Matt.  xvii.  25). 

Jesus  put  His  payment  of  the  tax  on  the  ground  that 
He  would  not  give  offence.     In  one  sense  He  was  not 

^  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah^  II.  113, 


THE   LATER  GALILEAN   MINISTRY  1 99 

under  obligation  to  pay  it,  even  as  the  son  of  a  king  is 
not  taxed  to  support  the  king.  These  are  such  words 
as  we  might  expect  from  one  who  knew  that  He  was 
greater  than  the  temple  (Matt.  xii.  6). 

The  way  in  which,  according  to  Matthew,  the  needed 
money  was  procured  is  not  parallel  with  the  other  signs 
of  Jesus,  and  is  open  to  objection.  It  reads  more  like 
the  tales  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  than  like  the  nar- 
ratives of  the  genuine  ones.  Peter  was  to  go  to  the 
lake,  take  up  the  first  fish  that  should  bite  his  hook, 
and  he  would  find  a  stater  in  its  mouth  (a  silver  coin 
worth  four  drachmas,  or  about  sixty-six  cents).  It  is 
objected  by  some  scholars  i  that  in  supplying  the  needed 
money  in  this  miraculous  manner  Jesus  would  have 
appeared  to  be  doing  exactly  what  in  the  wilderness 
He  had  refused  to  do,  and  had  regarded  as  a  tempta- 
tion of  Satan  (Matt.  iv.  3).  In  Capernaum,  where  He 
had  friends,  it  seems  probable  that  He  could  have  easily 
obtained  the  small  amount  which  was  required,  without 
a  miracle.  It  cannot  be  objected  that  He  would  thus 
be  dependent  on  others,  for  we  know  that  He  received 
gifts  from  friends,  and  was  indeed  entirely  supported 
by  them  during  His  ministry.  He  accepted  the  gifts 
of  love. 

Then,  too,  the  miracle  as  recorded  seems  to  have  no 
great  lesson  as  have  the  miracles  of  Jesus  in  general. 
As  a  sign  it  seems  to  have  no  adequate  significance. 
It  would  of  course  show  that  Jesus  had   supernatural 

1  E.g.,  Beyschlag,  Das  Lebeti  Jesu,  I.  304. 


200  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

knowledge ;  but  why  did  this  need  to  be  shown  ?  There 
is  no  reason  to  think  that  Peter  was  in  doubt.  He  had 
seen  many  proofs  of  the  supernatural  knowledge  and 
power  of  Jesus.  In  this  case,  however,  such  knowledge 
does  not  appear  to  be  necessary  for  His  Messianic 
work.  And  finally,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the  nar- 
rative says  nothing  of  the  result  of  the  word  of  Jesus 
to  Peter.  If  Jesus  had  really  promised  a  miracle,  we 
should  have  expected  some  reference  to  the  success 
of  Peter.  There  is  no  other  case  in  the  Gospels  where 
Jesus  is  said  to  have  promised  a  miracle,  and  where 
nevertheless  the  miracle  is  not  recorded.  But  here  we 
are  not  told  whether  Peter  found  the  money. 

Edersheim,  however,  sees  in  the  act  a  vindication 
of  Christ's  "royal  title."  Jesus  pays  the  tax  "mirac- 
ulously, as  heaven's  King."  There  is  one  obvious  ob- 
jection to  this  view,  namely,  that  Jesus  did  not  manifest 
His  kingly  glory  chiefly  in  working  miracles.  The 
prophets  also  wrought  miracles.  But  He  manifested 
His  glory  in  His  divine  character,  in  His  grace  and 
truth.  Miracles  were  incidental  to  this  manifestation. 
Hence  this  narrative  of  a  coin  in  a  fish's  mouth  remains 
a  stranger  and  a  foreigner  in  the  circle  of  the  great 
works  of  Jesus. 

Who  is  Greatest  f 

A  second  incident  belonging  to  the  last  days  in 
Capernaum  and  Galilee  was  the  address  in  regard  to 
true  greatness  (Mark  ix.  33-50;  Matt,  xviii.  1-14;  Luke 


THE   LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  201 


IX 


46-48).  This,  like  the  first  reference  by  Jesus  to 
His  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  first  use  of  the  self-desig- 
nation Son  of  man,  seems  to  have  been  in  the  house  of 
Peter,  for  since  Jesus  was  seeking  to  keep  out  of  the 
pubHc  eye  (Mark  ix.  30),  He  would  naturally  lodge  in 
Capernaum  with  His  most  intimate  friends. 

The  words  of  Jesus  regarding  the  way  to  greatness 
were  suggested  by  something  that  had  occurred  as  they 
were  coming  to  Capernaum.  Some  of  the  disciples  had 
contended  with  each  other  regarding  their  relative  rank 
in  the  kingdom,  supposedly  without  the  knowledge  of 
Jesus  (Mark  ix.  34).  It  is  not  improbable  that  the 
disturbing  question  arose  because  of  the  favor  shown 
by  Jesus  to  three  of  His  disciples,  or  by  the  words  of 
praise  spoken  to  Peter  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  or  by  both 
these  events  together.  An  intimation  from  Peter  or 
John  or  James  that  he  belonged  to  an  inner  circle  and 
so  expected  something  above  the  common  lot  in  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Messiah  would  have  been  quite  suffi- 
cient to  precipitate  a  controversy. 

Jesus,  however,  had  learned  of  the  trouble  in  some 
way,  and  when  in  the  house  proceeded  to  answer  the 
question.  He  told  the  disciples,  in  substance,  that  there 
was  only  one  road  to  greatness  and  that  was  the  road 
of  service  (Mark  ix.  35).  Hence  the  favored  disciples 
should  build  no  hopes  for  future  promotion  on  the  fact 
that  they  had  been  chosen  to  go  up  to  the  mountain  top 
with  Jesus,  and  Peter  must  beware  lest  he  draw  false 
inferences  from  the  word  which  Jesus  had  spoken  to  him. 


202  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

We  have  in  this  connection  an  illustration  of  the  esti- 
mate which  Jesus  placed  upon  childhood.  He  set  a 
little  child  in  the  midst  of  the  twelve  as  their  teacher, 
and  then,  having  embraced  it,  He  said  that  to  receive 
such  an  one  in  His  name,  that  is,  to  receive  and  love 
for  Jesus'  sake  what  the  little  child  stands  for,  was  the 
same  as  receiving  Him.  He  also  set  forth  the  pre- 
ciousness  of  the  child  under  the  symbol  that  the  angels 
of  children  are  especially  near  to  the  heavenly  Father 
(Matt,  xviii.   lo). 

It  was  on  this  occasion  in  Peter's  house  that  John, 
touched  perhaps  by  what  Jesus  had  said  about  humility, 
reported  the  case  of  an  unnamed  man  whom  the  dis- 
ciples had  found  casting  out  demons  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  (Mark  ix.  38-41  ;  Luke  ix.  49,  50).  They  sought 
to  restrain  him  because  he  did  not  follow  them.  We 
are  not  here  concerned  with  this  incident  further  than 
to  note  it  as  an  illustration  of  the  influence  of  Jesus' 
name.  The  man  who  was  casting  out  demons  must 
at  least  have  believed  in  Jesus  as  a  great  prophet,  if  not 
as  the  Messiah,  and  something  in  the  word  or  the 
example  of  Jesus  had  set  him  at  work.  Jesus  seems 
to  have  thought  it  a  matter  of  slight  importance  that 
the  man  did  not  follow  His  disciples ;  he  was  seeking 
to  do  good  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  that  was  the  great 
thing. 

A  third  incident  belonging  to  the  last  days  in  Galilee 
was  the  conversation  between  Jesus  and  His  brothers 
(John   vii.    3-9).     It   seems    probable    that   Jesus   had 


THE  LATER   GALILEAN   MINISTRY  203 

sought  out  His  mother  and  brothers  before  He  should 
leave  Galilee  forever.  The  brothers'  words  show  that 
Jesus  had  recently  avoided  publicity,  a  circumstance 
which  points  to  the  last  weeks  in  Galilee.  His  brothers 
wished  Him  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  and  manifest  Himself 
opaily.  This  seems  to  indicate  that  they  no  longer 
regarded  Him  as  being  out  of  His  mind,  as  they  had 
done  at  an  earlier  day  (Mark  iii.  21).  They  had  not 
yet  a  true  faith  in  Him,  as  John  says,  and  yet  they  seem 
to  have  regarded  Him  as  equipped  with  some  special 
authority.  As  Jesus  had  avoided  publicity  during  the 
last  weeks,  so  He  departed  from  Galilee  and  went  up  to 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles  in  a  private  manner  (John  vii. 
10).  But  He  seems  not  to  have  departed  until  He  had 
received  an  intimation  from  the  Father  that  His  time 
had  come  (John  vii.  6,  8 ;  v.   19). 


CHAPTER  XIII 

Last  Labors  for  Jerusalem 

The  Data. 

The  data  for  the  third  period  of  Messianic  activity  in 
Jerusalem  are  found  in  John  exclusively  (John  vii.  lo- 
X.  40).  The  Synoptists  omit  this  as  they  omit  the  visit 
to  Jerusalem  at  the  first  Passover,  the  early  labors  in 
Judea,  and  the  visit  at  the  feast  of  Purim.  Matthew 
and  Mark  pass  at  once  from  the  Galilean  ministry  to 
the  ministry  in  Perea  (Matt.  xix.  i  ;  Mark  x.  i),  and 
from  Perea  to  the  last  Passover  (Matt.  xx.  17,  29;  Mark 
X.  32,  46).  Luke  also  omits  this  Jerusalem  period. 
When  he  says  that  Jesus,  at  the  close  of  the  Galilean 
ministry,  set  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  it  is  not  prob- 
able that  he  has  in  mind  the  journey  to  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  which  John  records  (Luke  ix.  51).  He 
makes  no  reference  to  Jesus'  being  in  Jerusalem  until 
the  last  week  of  His  life.^  He  seems  to  regard  Christ's 
departure  from  Galilee  as  the  beginning  of  the  end. 
From  this  time  till  the  last  Passover,  he  represents 
Jesus  as  journeying  and  teaching,  His  face  always 
toward  Jerusalem. ^ 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  II.  381. 

2  Accordingly  Luke  ix.  51  ;  xiii.  22  ;  xviii.  31  are  references  to  succes- 
sive stages  in  one  journey,  and  not  references  to  three  distinct  journeys. 
Comp.  Edersheim,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  II.  127. 

204 


LAST  LABORS   FOR   JERUSALEM  205 

To  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 

As  Jesus  avoided  going  to  Jerusalem  with  the  mul- 
titudes who  went  up  to  the  feast,  so  He  may  have 
avoided  the  ordinary  route  down  the  Jordan  valley  on 
the  eastern  side.  He  seems  at  least  to  have  started  by 
the  Samaritan  route.  For  Luke  speaks  of  a  journey 
through  Samaria,  or  at  any  rate  into  Samaria  (Luke  ix. 
52),  and  it  is  easier  to  identify  this  with  the  trip  to  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  than  to  think  that  it  refers  to  the 
journey  in  March  to  the  feast  of  Purim.  At  that  time 
His  disciples  were  in  Galilee;  now  they  are  with  Him 
(Luke  ix.  52,  54).  The  fact  that  messengers  were  sent 
before  Him  to  find  lodging  is  not  in  conflict  with  John's 
statement  that  Jesus  went  up  to  the  feast  as  it  were  in 
secret  (John  vii.  10).  John  simply  contrasts  the  way  in 
which  Jesus  went  with  the  going  in  the  regular  caravan 
of  pilgrims,  but  does  not  imply  that  He  went  absolutely 
alone. 

The  first  Samaritan  village  where  the  messengers 
sought  lodging  for  Jesus  refused  to  receive  Him  because 
it  was  manifest  that  He  was  going  to  Jerusalem  to  the 
feast  (Luke  ix.  53).  Now  since  it  was  the  sphere  of 
religion  where  Jews  and  Samaritans  were  especially 
hostile  toward  each  other,  the  journey  of  Jesus  and  His 
disciples  to  a  feast  afforded  an  excellent  opportunity  for 
the  Samaritans  to  pay  off  their  ancient  score.  Repulsed 
in  one  village,  Jesus  went  to  another  (Luke  ix.  56). 
Some  suppose  that  this  second  village  was  Jewish,  and 
that  Jesus  turned  back  across  the  border  into  Galilee, 


206  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

but  there  seems  to  be  no  evidence  for  this  other  than 
the  assumption  that  if  one  village  rejected  Him,  all  vil- 
lages would.i  This,  however,  is  not  probable.  Indeed, 
there  was  one  village  in  Samaria  where  Jesus  would 
have  been  welcomed  as  no  other  man  of  the  whole  earth 
(John  iv.  39-42).  And  in  other  villages,  where  He  was 
not  known  as  the  Messiah,  it  is  likely  that  good  Roman 
money  would,  as  a  rule,  overcome  Samaritan  prejudice. 
Moreover,  Jesus  and  His  disciples  would  not  have 
started  through  Samaria  unless  they  had  been  reason- 
ably sure  of  finding  entertainment. 

It  may  have  been  on  this  journey  that  Jesus  met  the 
ten  lepers  as  recorded  in  Luke  xvii.  1 1-19.  The  fact 
that  one  of  these  was  a  Samaritan  makes  it  probable 
that  they  were  near  the  border  of  Samaria,  and  the 
statement  of  Luke  that  He  was  between  Samaria  and 
Galilee  points  in  the  same  direction.  This  is  the  only 
case  on  record  where  Jesus  wrought  a  miracle  in  behalf 
of  a  Samaritan. 

The  incident  is  noteworthy  because  the  cure  wrought 
by  Jesus  was  gradual  (Luke  xvii.  14),  and  also  as  sug- 
gesting, together  with  some  other  facts,  that  the  Samar- 
itan nature  was  more  responsive  to  the  kindness  of 
Jesus  than  was  the  nature  of  the  Jews  (comp.  Luke 
X.  33;  John  iv.  40). 

Jesus  had  not  been  in  Jerusalem  at  the  last  Passover, 
though  He  had  been  there  at  the  Purim  feast  a  month 
earlier  (John  v.   i),  and   therefore  when   the   feast  of 

1  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  II.  131. 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM         207 

Tabernacles  came  there  was  a  general  expectation  that 
He  would    attend   it  (John  vii.   n).       He  was   sought 
among  the  pilgrims,  and  there  was  a  common  interest 
in  His  appearance.     What  was  said  about  Him  openly 
was  unfavorable ;    but  some  persons,  when  not  in  the 
hearing  of  the  leaders,  held  that  He  was  a  good  man 
(John  vii.  12).     They  went  no  farther  than  this.     Even 
those  who  were  friendly  toward  Him  apparently  did  not 
believe  Him  to  be  the  Messiah.     Those  who  were  hos- 
tile said  that  He  led  the  multitude  astray  (John  vii.  12). 
This  charge  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  while 
His  works  raised  their   expectations,  and   made   them 
think  that  He  might  be  the  Messiah,  He  utterly  refused 
to  conform  to  the  popular  Messianic  role.     The  signal 
incident  in  mind  when  it  was  charged  that  He  led  the 
multitude    astray,    may   have    been   the   experience   at 
Bethsaida   JuUas,  when   the   multitude,  roused   by  the 
miracle  of  Jesus,  sought  in  vain  to  make  Him  king. 

General  View  of  this  Period. 

Jesus  went  to  Jerusalem  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles 
(John  vii.  2,  10),  and  went  away  into  Perea  after  the 
feast  of  Dedication  (John  x.  22),  two  and  half  or  three 
months  later.  But  it  is  not  certain  that  He  spent  all 
this  time  in  Jerusalem.  The  hostility  of  the  Jews,  who 
sent  officers  to  take  Jesus  (John  vii.  32),  and  who  on 
two  occasions  sought  to  stone  Him  (John  viii.  59; 
x.  31),  and  again  tried  to  take  Him  prisoner  (John 
X.   39),   seems  unfavorable   to   the  view  that   He  was 


208  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

there  three  months.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  evi- 
dence that  He  made  a  deep  impression  on  many  peo- 
ple. Some  said  at  the  first  of  His  visit  that  He  was  a 
good  man  (John  vii.  12),  and  later  it  is  twice  said  that 
many  believed  on  Him  (John  vii.  31  ;  viii.  30).  The 
officers  were  so  moved  by  His  words  that  they  did  not 
execute  the  order  of  the  leaders  (John  vii.  46).  Nico- 
demus  is  represented  as  having  dared  to  champion  His 
cause  (John  vii.  51),  and  there  is  yet  other  proof  that 
prominent  Pharisees  and  officials  were  divided  in  their 
estimate  of  Him  (John  ix.  16;  x.  21).  It  is  not  possi- 
ble, therefore,  to  say  that  Jesus  may  not  have  spent  the 
time  between  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  and  the  feast  of 
Dedication  in  Jerusalem  and  the  neighboring  Bethany. 
During  this  period  more  stress  seems  to  have  been  laid 
on  teaching  than  on  miracles.  There  is  no  trace  of  the 
multitudinous  cures  which  we  find  in  the  Galilean  min- 
istry. John  records  only  one  miracle  as  wrought  at  this 
time,  but  he  represents  Jesus  as  speaking  of  ma7ty  good 
works  which  He  had  showed  the  Jews  from  the  Father, 
which  may  imply  miracles  that  are  not  described 
(John  X.  32). 

As  far  as  our  record  of  this  visit  to  Jerusalem  in- 
forms us,  Jesus  came  into  contact  with  the  Pharisees 
and  high  officers  of  the  Sanhedrin  much  more  than  in 
any  previous  part  of  His  ministry.  The  disciples  of 
Jesus,  the  twelve,  drop  almost  entirely  out  of  sight. 
They  are  only  once  referred  to,  and  then  incidentally 
(John  ix.  2). 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM         209 

What  John  records  out  of  this  period  is  rather  the 
controversies  growing  out  of  Christ's  teaching  in  the 
temple  than  the  teaching  itself;  and  yet  the  points  on 
which  the  controversies  turned  were  probably  also  the 
vital  points  of  His  teaching.  These  points  are  so  in- 
tensely personal  that,  although  the  present  work  does 
not  include  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  detail,  they  may  be 
briefly  enumerated.  Thus  He  claims  a  unique  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father  (John  vii.  16;  viii.  38,  55,  etc.),  a 
unique  mission  from  the  Father  (John  vii.  28;  viii.  16, 
18,  23,  26,  28,  42;  X.  36),  and  a  unique  union  with  the 
Father  (John  viii.  16;  x.  30,  38).  All  these  claims  are 
but  different  aspects  of  the  one  Messianic  claim,  which 
seems  to  have  been  as  prominent  in  this  period  as  was 
the  preaching  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  early 
Galilean  ministry.  He  refers  again  and  again  to  His 
approaching  death,  and  regards  it  as  an  act  of  self-reve- 
lation. It  will  show  Him  to  be  the  Messiah  (John 
viii.  28);  it  will  prove  that  He  is  the  good  shepherd 
(John  X.  II,  15,  17,  18).  Out  of  His  Messianic  con- 
sciousness, which  is  brought  forward  so  prominently, 
comes  the  urgent  statement  of  man's  need  of  Him. 
His  hearers  shall  die  in  their  sins  unless  they  believe 
that  He  is  the  Christ  (John  viii.  24).  He  alone  gives 
freedom,  light,  life  (John  viii.  12,  36;  x.  10). 

Such  is  the  fulness  of  the  personal  Messianic  claim 
which  according  to  John  characterized  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  in  this  period.  Not  only  is  there  a  remarkable 
fulness,   but  the  teaching  is  urgent.      Jesus  called  for 


210  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF   JESUS 

immediate  acceptance  of  His  message  on  the  ground 
that  the  time  of  His  being  with  them  was  short.  In  a 
httle  while  they  would  seek  Him,  but  then  it  would  be 
too  late.  They  could  not  come  whither  He  was  about 
to  go. 

Testing  the  Jerusalem  Disciples. 

The  words  of  Jesus  in  the  temple  on  a  certain  occa- 
sion won  many  disciples  (John  vii.  31).  Some  were 
ready  to  accept  Him  as  the  prophet  who  should  precede 
the  Messiah,  and  some  as  the  Messiah  Himself  (John 
vii.  41).  Even  the  officers  of  the  Pharisees  were  deeply 
impressed  by  His  words.  But  the  impression  was,  at 
least  in  most  cases,  like  that  which  Jesus  had  produced 
at  the  first  Passover  (John  ii.  23).  He  had  many  disci- 
ples around  Him,  but  He  had  not  their  hearts.  They 
accepted  Him  because  they  thought  He  was  their  Mes- 
siah, but  when  they  understood  His  teaching  better  they 
rejected  Him. 

The  words  of  Jesus  to  these  ostensible  disciples  seem 
very  severe,  but  it  appears  in  the  sequel  that  they  are 
true.  He  promised  His  hearers  freedom  through  the 
truth  and  must  then  explain  that  He  meant  freedom 
from  j/;/ (John  viii.  31,32,  34).  His  hearers  need  this 
freedom,  for  though  they  are  descended  from  Abraham 
they  are  hostile  to  Him.  They  have  the  spirit  of  the 
devil,  who  is  a  murderer  and  a  liar  (John  viii.  44). 
When  Jesus  spoke  this  word,  those  who  a  little  be- 
fore had  been,  at  least  outwardly,  His  disciples  called 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM         211 

Him  a  Samaritan,  possessed  with  a  demon,  and  a  few 
minutes  later  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  Him  (John 
viii.  48,  59).  Thus  it  became  plain  that  these  disciples 
were  such  only  so  long  as  they  thought  that  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah  of  their  hopes.  At  heart  they  were  as  far 
from  Him  as  were  the  rulers.  One  hour  they  accepted 
Him,  the  next  hour  they  were  ready  to  stone  Him. 
This  controversy  is  a  notable  illustration  of  Jesus'  faith- 
fulness to  truth  in  dealing  with  men.  Jerusalem  was 
the  very  place  where  He  needed  the  support  of  a 
strong  band  of  disciples,  and  now  at  last  He  seemed  to 
be  gaining  such  support.  There  were  many  who 
professed  belief  in  Him.  But  instead  of  encouraging 
them  in  their  superficial  faith,  He  brought  them  at 
once  to  the  rigorous  test  of  truth,  and  would  have 
none  of  their  discipleship  unless  it  was  genuine.  He 
would  sooner  have  them  stone  Him  for  telling  them 
the  truth  than  have  them  accept  Him  as  a  worldly 
Messiah. 

The  Man  born  Blind. 

When  those  who  had  been  disciples  of  Jesus  took  up 
stones  to  stone  Him,  it  seemed  as  though  nothing  more 
could  be  done  in  Jerusalem.  But  John  relates  how  Jesus 
yet  won  a  true  disciple,  and  how  at  the  same  time  He 
intensified  the  spirit  of  opposition,  which  soon  drove 
Him  from  the  capital.  Passing  along  the  street  on  the 
Sabbath  He  saw  a  beggar  who  had  been  blind  from  his 
birth  (ix.  i,  8).     The  disciples,  without  apparent  concern 


212  THE  STUDENT'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

for  the  man's  wretched  state,  raised  the  theoretical 
question  whether  the  blindness  was  due  to  the  man's 
own  sin  or  the  sin  of  his  parents  (ix.  2).  Jesus,  deny- 
ing both  these  alternatives  and  saying  that  here  was  an 
opportunity  to  do  the  work  of  God,  anointed  the  man's 
eyes  with  clay,  sent  him  to  the  pool  of  Siloam  to  wash  the 
clay  off,  and  when  he  had  done  this  he  saw  (ix.  3-7). 
Through  the  man's  neighbors  the  matter  came  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  Pharisees,  and  then  the  man  himself 
was  brought  before  them  (ix.  8,  13).  In  their  investiga- 
tion of  the  case,  the  parents  of  the  man  were  summoned 
(ix.  18-21);  and  afterward,  as  the  man  had  the  better  of 
the  Pharisees  in  the  argument,  they  reviled  him  and 
then  cast  him  out  (ix.  28,  34).  Jesus  learned  of  their 
action,  sought  the  man  out,  and  led  him  to  a  fuller  faith 
(ix.  35-38). 

This  narrative  is  biographically  important  in  several 
particulars.  First,  it  caused  a  division  even  among  the 
Pharisees,  some  of  whom  would  not  admit  that  Jesus 
was  a  sinner  even  though  He  had  cured  the  man  on  the 
Sabbath  (ix.  16).  Second,  it  brings  out  the  fact  that 
the  Jews  had  taken  stringent  ecclesiastical  ^iCtion  against 
any  who  should  accept  Jesus.  Such  persons  were  to 
be  excommunicated,  i.  e.  put  out  of  the  synagogue 
(John  ix.  22).  This  was  the  severest  form  of  spiritual 
punishment  which  could  be  inflicted.  In  consequence 
of  it  a  man  was  cast  out  from  all  intercourse  with  his 
countrymen,  and  was  accursed.  He  was  as  a  dead  man. 
This  punishment  could  be  inflicted  upon  one  who  disre- 


LAST  LABORS   FOR  JERUSALEM  21 3 

garded  the  statutes  of  the  Sanhedrin,^  and  so  could  be 
mflicted  in  the  case  of  this  man,  for  he  had  virtually 
confessed  Christ  (see  John  ix.  27,  31-33),  and  the  Sanhe- 
drin  had  declared  the  ban  on  any  who  should  be  guilty 
of  that  act.  This  extreme  measure  shows  that  the  rulers 
considered  Jesus  a  dangerous  enemy  even  in  Jerusalem, 
the  centre  and  stronghold  of  their  power.  Third,  this 
narrative  shows  in  a  striking  manner  the  regard  of  Jesus 
for  the  individual.  In  a  time  when  His  mind  was  filled 
with  the  crisis  just  before  Him,  and  when  His  life  was 
hourly  in  danger,  He  found  the  man  who  had  been  ex- 
communicated, probably  not  without  seeking  for  him, 
and  by  personal  conversation  led  him  to  beheve.  The 
treatment  which  this  man  had  received  from  the  ac- 
knowledged religious  leaders  and  His  own  treatment 
of  him  may  have  suggested  His  talk  about  the  good 
shepherd  and  the  hireling.  Fourth,  the  account  shows 
clearly  the  animus  of  the  opposition  to  Jesus.  He 
healed  the  man  on  the  Sabbath.  This  was  proof  to  the 
Pharisees  that  He  was  not  from  God.  It  confirmed 
them  in  the  belief  that  He  was  a  sinner.  Thus  they 
strained  out  the  gnat  and  swallowed  the  camel.  Jesus' 
violation  of  their  unauthorized  statute  regarding  the 
Sabbath  made  them  blind  to  His  divinely-good  and 
gracious  deed.  On  the  contrary,  the  man  who  was 
healed  argued  that  one  who  could  do  such  a  great  and 
kind  work  must  be  from  God. 

1  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrhundert  des  Heils,  I.  183. 


214  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

In  Solomon's  Porch. 

The  miracle  on  the  blind  man  and  the  subsequent 
words  of  Jesus  seem  to  have  won  temporary  security 
for  Him.  He  appeared  in  the  temple  again  as  a  teacher. 
This  was  at  the  feast  of  Dedication  in  December 
(John  X.  22).  The  leaders  again  sought  to  entrap  Him 
in  speech,  for  it  is  manifest  that  in  asking  Him  to  tell 
them  plainly  whether  He  was  the  Messiah,  they  were 
not  moved  by  a  sincere  desire  for  the  truth.  If  this 
had  been  their  spirit,  and  if  they  had  thought  there 
was  a  possibility  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  they  would 
not  in  the  next  minute  have  taken  up  stones  to  stone 
Him  (John  x.  31).  How  they  hoped  to  profit  by  His 
answer   to   their  question  we  are  not  told. 

Jesus  in  His  reply  to  their  question  said  it  had 
already  been  answered  both  in  words  and  in  works. 
There  was  no  lack  of  evidence  on  His  part,  but  of  faith 
on  their  part  (John  x.  25,  26).  In  speaking  of  the 
security  of  His  sheep,  He  used  language  which  His 
enemies  regarded  as  blasphemy  (John  x.  33). 

Once  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  Him,  but  for  some 
unknown  reason  desisted,  perhaps  because  there  were 
too  many  around  who  sympathized  with  Jesus.  Jesus 
referred  them  to  the  Scriptures  and  to  His  own  works 
for  proof  that  His  language  was  not  blasphemy  when 
He  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God  (John  x.  32,  34-36). 
If  in  their  own  unbreakable  Scriptures  earthly  rulers, 
because  of  their  office,  are  called  gods  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6), 
then  certainly  it  is  not  blasphemy  for  Him,  whom  the 


LAST   LABORS   FOR  JERUSALEM  21 5 

Father   consecrated    to   the    Messianic    office,    to   call 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  (John  x.  35,  36). 

Then,  as  Jesus  again  referred  to  His  union  with  the 
Father,  the  Jews  were  roused  to  a  fresh  assault  upon 
Him,  and  He  deemed  it  best  to  make  His  escape  from 
them.  Thus  closed  His  longest  ministry  in  Jerusalem, 
and  He  left  the  city  a  fugitive  (John  x.  39,  40). 


CHAPTER  XIV 

The   Perean   Ministry 

General  View. 

A  MINISTRY  in  Perea  toward  the  close  of  the  last 
year  of  Jesus'  life  is  attested  by  all  the  evangelists,  but 
it  is  not  possible  to  give  a  detailed  picture  of  it.  Luke 
has  more  material  which  seems  to  belong  in  this  period 
than  have  the  other  evangelists,  yet  it  is  not  always 
possible  to  say  with  certainty  that  particular  events  and 
discourses  of  his  narrative  do  belong  in  these  months. 
His  view  of  Jesus'  activity  from  the  end  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  till  the  last  week  is  that  of  a  journeying 
toward  Jerusalem,  and  it  is  not  possible  to  determine 
in  every  case  whether  a  passage  belongs  to  the  Jeru- 
salem period  or  to  the  Perean. 

Neither  of  the  evangelists  mentions  a  single  place  in 
Perea  by  name,  though  the  fourth  Gospel  says  that 
Jesus  abode  in  the  place  where  John  was  at  the  first 
baptizing  (John  x.  40). 

Jesus  went  into  Perea  toward  the  end  of  December, 
after  the  feast  of  Dedication  (John  x.  22,  39),  and  con- 
tinued till  shortly  before  the  last  Passover,  that  is,  about 
three  months  (John  xi.  17,  54,  55).  A  certain  prepara- 
tion for  work  in  this  district  had  been  made  by  John 
the  Baptist,  who  had  preached  on  its  border  (John  x. 

216 


THE   PEREAN   MINISTRY  217 

40),  and  whose  martyrdom  was  probably  within  its 
limits.  Jesus  also  had  twice  been  in  Perea,  and  the 
second  time  had  become  widely  known  (Mark  v.  1-20; 
vii.  31-viii.  12).  In  general,  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in 
Perea  was  like  that  in  GaHlee.  He  taught  the  mul- 
titudes regarding  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  wrought 
beneficent  signs  (Mark  x.  i  ;  Luke  x.  17  ;  xiii.  32),  and 
gathered  some  fruit  (John  x.  42).  There  seems  to  be 
in  the  teaching  of  this  period  a  more  continuous  and 
stern  note  of  judgment  than  is  found  in  the  earlier 
ministry.  If  this  be  true,  it  would  accord  with  the  fact 
of  His  rejection  in  Galilee  and  Jerusalem  (Luke  xii. 
49-53;  xiii.  6-9,  24-30;  xiv.  24,  etc.). 

The  Seventy, 

The  mission  of  the  seventy  may  most  easily  be 
explained  as  a  part  of  the  ministry  in  Perea.  It  can- 
not have  been  in  connection  with  the  journey  of  Jesus 
to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  for  that  was  semi-private 
(John  vii.  10) ;  and  there  seems  to  be  no  place  for  it  in 
the  Galilean  ministry. 

It  is  intrinsically  probable  that  Jesus,  in  the  brief 
time  that  remained,  wished  to  spread  the  knowledge  of 
His  kingdom  as  broadly  as  possible  among  the  Jews  of 
the  large  Perean  region.  The  pressure  arising  from 
the  nearness  of  the  end  may  have  led  to  the  sending 
of  seventy  instead  of  twelve.  This  mission  of  the 
seventy  disciples  may  very  probably  have  been  from 
that  place  where  Jesus,   according  to  John,  abode  on 


2l8  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

going  into  Perea  (John  x.  40).  If  this  mission  was 
indeed  in  Perea,  then  it  implies  that  Jesus  visited  a 
considerable  number  of  towns  (Luke  x.   i). 

The  seventy  were  sent  out,  according  to  Luke,  with 
about  the  same  instructions  which  had  been  given  to 
the  twelve  (Luke  x.  1-12).  There  are,  however,  certain 
details  in  his  report  of  the  words  of  Jesus  that  accord 
better  with  the  Perean  than  with  the  early  Galilean 
ministry.  Emphasis  on  the  iirgejicy  of  their  work 
points  to  the  later  time,  when  the  shadow  of  the  cross 
was  growing  more  and  more  distinct  to  the  eye  of  Jesus 
(Luke  X.  4,  last  clause ;  x.  7,  last  clause).  Also  the 
word  that  they  go  forth  as  lambs  in  the  midst  of  wolves 
(Luke  x.  3).  On  the  other  hand,  the  saying  that  the 
harvest  is  plenteous  better  suits  the  early  Galilean  min- 
istry than  it  does  that  in  Perea  (Luke  x.  2).  It  is  possi- 
ble that  the  instructions  in  Luke  are  a  blending  of  two 
addresses. 

The  mission  of  the  seventy  was  successful,  at  least 
in  its  work  of  healing  (Luke  x.  17).  They  came  back, 
perhaps  to  the  place  near  the  Jordan  whither  Jesus  had 
gone  from  Jerusalem,  and  reported  to  their  Master  that 
even  the  demon  had  been  subject  to  them  in  His  name. 

Perean  Incidents. 

The  Question  of  Divorce. 

If  the  period  of  three  months  spent  in  Perea  was 
filled  with  Messianic  activity,  as  we  may  infer  that 
it  was,  then  tradition  seems  to  have  preserved  but  little 


THE  PEREAN   MINISTRY  219 

out  of  those  days  and  weeks,  even  as  we  have  very  little 
information  regarding  the  preceding  period  in  Jerusa- 
lem. We  cannot  say  why  the  data  are  so  scant.  It 
may  have  been  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  the  early 
Church  had  fewer  roots  in  Perea  than  in  Galilee ;  and, 
possibly,  it  may  have  been  partly  due  to  the  character 
of  the  Perean  work  of  Jesus.  There  may  not  have 
been  much  that  presented  new  aspects  of  the  Messiah's 
teaching. 

On  one  occasion,  Pharisees  came  to  Jesus  and  sought 
to  involve  Him  in  trouble  regarding  the  subject  of  divorce 
(Mark  x.  2-12;  Matt.  xix.  3-12).  It  is  most  probable 
that  the  Pharisees  hoped  to  get  an  expression  from 
Jesus  which  would  arouse  Herod  Antipas  against  Him. 
John  the  Baptist  had  been  arrested  because  he  con- 
demned Herod's  marriage  with  Herodias,  and  the 
Pharisees  knew  well  that  Jesus  would  condemn  the 
lax  views  of  marriage  which  the  court  of  Herod  and 
many  of  the  common  people  held.  The  liberal  view, 
which  was  the  popular  one,  went  so  far  as  to  hold  that 
a  man  might  put  his  wife  away  if  she  burnt  his  dinner, 
or  if  he  saw  a  woman  he  liked  better.^  We  need  not 
suppose  that  the  practice  was  often  as  bad  as  this 
extreme  view,  but  without  doubt  the  liberalism  of  Hil- 
lel's  school  had  exerted  an  evil  influence.  The  attempt 
of  the  Pharisees,  however,  was  not  successful,  for  though 
Jesus  held  to  the  indissolubleness  of  the  marriage  bond, 
and  so  virtually  condemned  the  lax  view  on  the  subject, 

1  Schurer,  Geschichte  desjudischen  Volkes,  II.  493,  494. 


220  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

he  did  so  in  the  plain  language  of  Scripture,  which  they 
could  not  gainsay  (Mark  x.  6-8  ;  Matt.  xix.  4,  5).  He 
set  aside  the  legislation  of  Moses  on  the  subject  as 
imperfect,  a  legislation  that  made  concessions  to  the 
hardness  of  man's  heart ;  and  put  in  its  place  the  ideal 
of  the  primitive  revelation.  His  inference  from  that 
ideal  is  that  man  may  not  separate  husband  and  wife 
(Mark  x.  9).  Either  of  them  may  destroy  the  bond, 
and  then  human  law  may  recognize  that  fact  (Matt.  xix. 
9) ;  but  the  bond  cannot  otherwise  be  dissolved. 

Blessmg  the  CJiildren. 

An  illustration  of  the  esteem  in  which  Jesus  was  held 
in  this  region  of  Perea  was  furnished  by  the  fact  that 
mothers  brought  their  little  children  to  Him,  that  He 
should  bless  them  (Mark  x.  13-16;  Matt.  xix.  13-15; 
Luke  xviii.  15-17).  Behind  this  act  there  was  surely  a 
belief  that  He  was  a  holy  man,  and  that  He  was  kindly 
disposed  and  ready  to  speak  words  of  blessing.  The 
incident  suggests  that  Jesus  had  been  some  time  in  the 
neighborhood,  so  that  people  had  come  to  feel  ac- 
quainted with  Him ;  otherwise  the  mothers  would 
hardly  have  brought  their  babes  to  Him  for  His  touch 
and  word  of  benediction.  This  event  also  illustrates 
how  imperfectly  the  disciples  of  Jesus  understood  Him, 
for  they  presumed  to  rebuke  the  mothers,  perhaps  with 
the  thought  that  their  Master  had  more  important  work 
than  blessing  young  children.  But  the  prompt  indigna- 
tion of  Jesus  must  have  shown  them  that  His  estimate 


THE   PEREAN   MINISTRY  221 

of  the  importance  of  the  occasion  was  totally  different 
from  theirs.  He  welcomed  the  children,  both  for  their 
own  sakes  and  as  a  type  of  the  material  of  which  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  consists.  He  not  only  blessed  them, 
but  blessed  them  fervently^  thus,  as  it  were,  making 
ample  reparation  to  the  mothers  for  the  rebuke  they 
had  received  from  His  disciples. 

The  Rick   Young  Ruler. 

On  a  certain  occasion,  as  Jesus  was  just  setting  out 
on  His  journey,  a  young  man  of  blameless  morality  of 
the  legal  sort  came  to  Him  to  learn  how  he  might 
obtain  eternal  life  (Mark  x.  17-27;  Matt.  xix.  16-26; 
Luke  xviii.  18-30).  The  incident  is  interesting  bio- 
graphically  because,  first,  in  the  ensuing  conversation, 
Jesus  declined  the  predicate  good,  saying  that  it  belonged 
to  God  alone.  He  as  a  man  subject  to  change  could 
not  accept  the  term  in  an  absolute  sense. 

This  saying  seems  to  have  been  early  regarded  as 
difficult,  for  in  Matthew  it  is  modified  and  reads,  "  Why 
askest  thou  me  concerning  the  good.?"  (Matt.  xix.  17). 
And  yet  it  is  not  strange  that  Jesus  rejected  the  epithet. 
It  is  rather  in  keeping  with  His  entire  character  that 
He  did  decline  it.  It  is  true.  He  was  conscious  of 
having  done  always  the  things  that  were  pleasing  to 
God.  He  was  conscious  that  He  had  not  sinned.  But 
He  was  conscious  also  that  He  had  been  tempted  and 
was  still  tempted  ;  that  He  was  a  man  free  to  choose, 
and  that  instead  of  being  sufficient  unto  Himself,  He 


222  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

depended  constantly  upon  God  (John  v.  19).  Since  He 
looked  up  to  God  as  His  God  (John  xx.  17),  so  He  must 
regard  Him  as  the  only  absolutely  good  one.^  And 
second,  this  incident  shows  the  insight  which  Jesus  had 
into  the  hearts  of  men.  He  saw  deep  down  beneath  the 
surface  the  dangerous  point  in  the  young  man's  char- 
acter, namely,  his  attachment  to  his  wealth.  Therefore 
He  tested  him  at  this  point.  He  loved  him  and  would 
have  been  glad  to  have  him  as  a  disciple,  but  on  one 
condition.  The  young  man  must  put  Him  first,  and  be 
wilHng  to  give  up  all  for  His  sake.  The  correctness  of 
Jesus'  estimate  of  the  young  man  is  shown  by  the  result. 
He  went  away  with  a  downcast  and  sorrowful  face,  and 
lost  his  divine  opportunity  (Mark  x.  22).  In  the  subse- 
quent remark  of  Jesus  on  the  difficulty  which  rich  men 
have  in  entering  the  Kingdom  of  God  we  may  perhaps 
see  the  generalized  experience  of  His  previous  ministry 
as  a  whole,  as  regards  the  rich. 

A  glimpse  into  the  experience  of  those  who  followed 
Jesus  is  perhaps  afforded  by  His  words  to  Peter,  spoken 
in  connection  with  the  incident  of  the  rich  young  man. 
Abundant  reward  shall  be  given  to  every  one  who  has 
left  house  or  brothers  or  sisters  or  mother  or  father  or 
children  or  fields  for  His  sake  (Mark  x.  29,  30).  This 
refers  to  the  past  and  seems  to  reflect  what  had  been 
true  of  the  disciples.  One  had  been  separated  from 
nearest  friends,  perhaps  disowned  by  them,  another  had 
given  up  house  and  fields. 

1  Compare  the  remark  of  Socrates  in  the  Phcsdrus  :  "  Wise  I  may  not 
call  them  ;  for  that  is  a  great  name,  which  belongs  to  God  alone." 


THE   PEREAN    MINISTRY  223 

Candidates  for  DisciplesJnp. 

It  may  well  have  been  in  the  Perean  days  that  Jesus 
compared  His  lot  with  that  of  the  foxes  and  birds.  A 
scribe  declared  his  readiness  to  follow  Jesus  whitherso- 
ever He  should  go  (Matt.  viii.  19;  Luke  ix.  57),  and 
Jesus,  desiring  that  the  man  should  count  the  cost  of 
discipleship,  replied  that  the  Son  of  man  had  not  a  place 
to  lay  His  head,  while  even  the  foxes  have  holes  and 
the  birds  have  nests  (Matt.  viii.  20  ;  Luke  ix.  58).  Jesus 
would  scarcely  have  spoken  in  this  wise  while  in  Galilee, 
where  Peter's  home  was  always  open  to  Him,  and  the 
homes  of  numerous  disciples,  nor  yet  while  in  Jerusalem, 
near  to  the  home  of  Lazarus.  The  language  suits  the 
time  after  His  rejection  by  the  people  of  GaUlee  and 
Jerusalem. 

Likewise  the  word  which  He  spoke  to  another  dis- 
ciple who  asked  leave  to  go  and  bury  his  father  (Matt, 
viii.  21,  22  ;  Luke  ix.  59,  60).  Jesus  said,  "  Let  the  dead 
bury  their  own  dead."  This  saying  suggests  a  time  when 
Jesus  looked  without  much  hope  upon  His  generation ; 
and  so  points  toward  the  latter  part  of  His  ministry. ^ 

Jesus  and  Herod. 

It  was  probably  while  Jesus  was  in  Perea  that  the 
Pharisees  reported  to  Him  Herod's  desire  to  kill  Him 

1  Huck  in  his  Sy7iopse  puts  in  the  Perean  period  the  parables  of  The 
Unjust  Steward  (Luke  xvi.  1-12),  The  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  (Luke  xvi. 
19-31),  and  The  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard  (Matt.  xx.  1-16).  They  may^ 
have  been  spoken  then,  but  they  contain  nothing  that  indicates  the  time 
of  their  origin. 


224  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

(Luke  xiii.  31).  From  the  fact  that  Jesus  sent  a  mes- 
sage to  Herod,  a  message  showing  that  He  understood 
his  crafty  character  (Luke  xiii.  32),  and  was  not  afraid 
of  his  power,  we  may  infer  that  Herod  was  really  seek- 
ing to  destroy  Jesus,  and  that  the  report  was  not  simply 
a  device  of  the  Pharisees  to  entangle  Jesus.  On  what 
grounds  Herod  sought  to  kill  Jesus  we  are  not  told.  He 
may  have  feared  lest  Jesus  should  become  a  political 
leader  and  rob  him  of  his  power. 

Jesus  had  left  Jerusalem  because  men  sought  His  life 
(John  X.  31,  39),  and  now  in  Perea  the  ruler  of  the  prov- 
ince wished  to  kill  Him.  It  is  not  strange  that  He 
spoke  words  on  this  occasion  which  showed  that  He 
regarded  the  end  as  very  near.  But  He  felt  secure 
from  the  plot  of  Herod  while  the  time  appointed  Him 
was  yet  unfulfilled.  *'I  cast  out  demons  and  perform 
cures  to-day  and  to-morrow."  ''  I  must  go  on  my  way 
to-day  and  to-morrow  "  (Luke  xiii.  32,  33).  He  felt  sure 
that  no  Herod  could  prevent  this.  Not  in  Perea  at 
Herod's  hand,  but  in  Jerusalem,  and  by  the  leaders  of 
His  own  people.  He  was  to  die,  and  thus  be  perfected. 
This  will  be  on  the  third  day,  that  is,  in  the  immediate 
future. 

The  Pharisees  who  told  Jesus  of  Herod's  purpose 
may  have  hoped  that  He  would  leave  Perea  and  return 
to  Judea,  where  He  might  the  more  easily  be  destroyed 
by  the  leaders.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they 
told  Him  as  friends,  solicitous  for  His  safety. 


CHAPTER   XV 
In  Bethany  and  Ephraim 

The  Rettirn  to  Bethany. 

Jesus  was  summoned  from  Perea  by  the  death  of 
Lazarus  (John  xi.  15).  This  cannot  have  been  long 
before  the  last  Passover,  perhaps  two  or  three  weeks. 
We  do  not  know  when  Jesus  became  acquainted  with 
the  family  of  Lazarus  in  Bethany.  Luke  records  an 
incident  that  transpired  in  this  home,  and  puts  it  subse- 
quent to  the  linal  departure  of  Jesus  from  Galilee  (Luke 
X.  38-42).  But  it  is  not  plain  that  Jesus'  acquaintance 
with  Mary  and  Martha  began  at  this  time.  The  story 
rather  suggests  that  they  had  known  Jesus  before,  for 
they  received  Him  into  their  house,  as  they  would  hardly 
have  done  had  He  been  a  stranger.  Mary  sits  at  His 
feet,  apparently  from  His  entrance  into  the  house,  and 
Martha  does  not  accost  Him  as  though  she  had  had  no 
previous  acquaintance  with  Him.  But  though  we  can- 
not mark  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  acquaintance  with  Laz- 
arus and  his  two  sisters,  we  know  that  He  was  especially 
attached  to  them  (John  xi.  5).  It  was  perhaps  because 
of  the  close  relationship  between  them  that  the  family 
knew  where  Jesus  was,  and  so  could  send  a  messenger 
to  Him  when  Lazarus  was  sick. 
Q  225 


226  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

According  to  John,  Jesus  had  supernatural  knowledge 
regarding  the  course  of  events  in  Bethany.  He  knew 
before  setting  out  for  Judea  that  Lazarus  was  dead,  and 
that  He  should  raise  him  to  life  (John  xi.  4,  11).  There 
is  a  manifest  reason  why  such  knowledge  was  given  to 
Jesus,  and  why  Jesus  tarried  in  Perea  as  He  did.  God 
purposed  that  He  should  work  a  great  miracle,  not  in 
healing  Lazarus,  but  in  raising  him  from  the  dead,  and 
this  miracle  was  to  be  for  the  strengthening  of  the  faith 
of  the  disciples,  and  to  be  a  last  mighty  call  to  Jerusalem 
(John  xi.  15,  45  ;  xii.  9-1 1). 

The  disciples  were  opposed  to  Jesus'  return  into  Judea. 
They  reminded  Him  of  the  recent  attempt  to  take  His 
Hfe,  and  seemed  surprised  that  He  should  think  of  going 
back  among  His  enemies  (John  xi.  8).  They  regarded  it 
as  extremely  dangerous,  and  Thomas  at  least  thought  the 
journey  would  issue  in  the  death  of  Jesus  (John  xi.  16). 

The  Raising  of  Lazarus. 

It  appears  that  Jesus  stopped  outside  the  village  of 
Bethany  of  His  own  accord,  for,  after  talking  with 
Martha  who  had  come  forth  to  meet  Him,  He  sent  her 
to  call  Mary  (John  xi.  28).  If  He  preferred  to  meet 
Mary  outside  the  village,  it  is  natural  to  think  that  it 
was  His  plan  also  to  summon  Martha,  and  that  He  had 
done  this  by  sending  to  her  one  of  His  disciples.  He 
may  well  have  anticipated  that  there  would  be  a  throng 
of  friends  in  the  house  of  mourning,  and  may  have 
wished  to  avoid  meeting  them. 


IN   BETHANY   AND   EPHRAIM  227 

Jesus  was  unusually  moved  when  He  saw  Mary  and 
her  friends  weeping  (John  xi.  33).  His  manner  evinced 
a  deep  inner  emotion,  as  it  did  also  when  He  put  the 
healed  leper  forth  out  of  the  house  (Mark  i.  43).  The 
word  suggests  that  the  emotion  was  one  of  indignation 
(i/n/SpLfidaOat).  A  moment  later  He  wept,  and  still  later, 
perhaps  as  they  neared  the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  the  inward 
emotion  was  again  manifest  (John  xi.  36,  38).  On  one 
other  occasion  Jesus  is  said  to  have  wept,  and  the  cause 
was  the  unbelief  of  Jerusalem  (Luke  xix.  41-44).  Pity 
and  sorrow  were  expressed  in  the  tears  that  He  shed. 
In  like  manner  we  may  hold  that  it  was  sorrow  and  pity 
which  made  Jesus  weep  when  outside  Bethany,  this  sor- 
row and  pity  being  due  to  unbelief  just  as  they  were  when 
He  wept  over  Jerusalem.  Unbelief  was  manifest  in  the 
weeping  of  Mary  and  the  Jews.  Had  they  beUeved,  as 
Jesus  did,  in  the  love  of  the  Father,  they  would  not  have 
thus  given  themselves  over  to  sorrow  and  tears,  because 
the  Father  had  taken  one  of  their  number  to  Himself. 
Moreover,  this  view  of  the  weeping  of  Jesus  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  it  accords  with  the  foregoing  statement 
of  John  that  the  manner  of  Jesus  expressed  an  inner 
emotion  of  indignation.  Tears  of  sorrow  and  pity  might 
naturally  accompany  the  deep  feeling  of  indignation  at 
the  unbelief  of  the  people  around  Him.  Unbehef  in 
God  was  at  the  same  time  unbelief  in  Jesus  who  had 
been  seeking  to  reveal  God,  and  therefore  He  could  say 
at  the  tomb  that  He  spoke  as  He  did  to  awaken  belief 
in  those  who  stood  around  (John  xi.  42). 


228  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

The  scene  at  the  tomb  gives  prommence  to  one  fact, 
namely,  that  Jesus  wrought  His  miracles  in  conscious 
dependence  upon  God,  or  that  God  gave  Him  authority 
to  work  miracles  in  answer  to  prayer  and  as  a  proof  of 
His  Messiahship.  Jesus  thanked  God  that  He  had  heard 
Him  (John  xi.  41,  42),  from  which  it  is  plain  that  He  had 
previously  prayed  to  God.  The  situation  requires  us  to 
think  that  He  had  prayed  for  power  to  raise  Lazarus. 
Both  the  prayer  and  the  assurance  that  it  was  granted 
may  have  belonged  to  the  hour  in  which  the  messenger 
had  come  from  Bethany  with  tidings  of  the  sickness  of 
Lazarus  (John  xi.  4).  What  was  true  at  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  we  assume  to  have  been  true  in  all  the  miracles 
of  Jesus,  there  being  no  evidence  whatever  to  the  con- 
trary (comp.  Luke  xi.  20;  Matt.  xii.  28). 

The  raising  of  Lazarus  led  to  a  fresh  and  more  de- 
cided activity  of  the  enemies  of  Jesus.  A  council  was 
gathered,  the  high  priest  advised  the  death  of  Jesus,  and 
from  that  day  forth  the  leaders  plotted  how  they  might 
destroy  Him  (John  xi.  47-53).  Thus,  whether  formally 
or  informally,  the  Sanhedrin  decreed  the  death  of  Jesus. 
The  ground  of  their  action,  according  to  John,  was 
political  and  national.  They  feared  that  Jesus,  by 
means  of  His  unquestionable  signs,  would  secure  such 
a  following  as  to  attract  the  attention  of  Rome,  and 
that  Rome,  to  be  free  forever  from  these  uprisings 
against  her  authority,  would  take  from  the  Jews  the 
last  vestige  of  independence. 

If  the  raising  of  Lazarus  stimulated  the  opposition  to 


IN   BETHANY   AND    EPHRAIM  229 

Jesus,  it  also  led  many  to  believe  on  Him  (John  xi.  45). 
One  hesitates,  however,  to  attach  great  significance  to 
this  statement,  for  John  indicates  elsewhere  that  the 
faith  which  rested  upon  signs  was  only  superficial 
(John  ii.  23-25). 

hi  Ephraim. 

Shortly  after  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  Jesus  with- 
drew from  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  to  avoid  the 
plots  of  the  Jews.  The  city  called  Ephraim,  near  to 
the  wilderness  (John  xi.  54),  is  identified  by  some 
scholars  with  Taiyibeh,  a  village  among  the  mountains 
five  miles  northeast  from  Bethel. ^  It  is  plain  that 
Jesus  retired  to  the  place  to  escape  from  the  Jews,  and 
it  is  not  likely  that  His  place  of  retirement  was  known. 
Of  the  sojourn  in  Ephraim  we  know  nothing.  It  was 
probably  a  time  of  quiet  and  of  preparation  for  the  end. 

The  Last  Journey  to  Jerusalem. 

When  the  Passover  drew  near  and  the  caravans  of 
pilgrims  were  moving  up  to  Jerusalem,  Jesus  joined  a 
Galilean  caravan  at  some  point  before  they  reached 
Jericho  (Luke  xviii.  35).  Thus  it  appears  that  He 
made  a  journey  of  some  considerable  length  for  the 
sake  —  as  far  as  we  can  see  —  of  going  to  Jerusalem  in 
company  with  His  Galilean  countrymen. 

Jesus  stopped  in  Jericho  over  night  (Luke  xix.  5), 
and  owed  His  entertainment  to  the  chance  acquaintance 
which  He  made  with  a  rich  tax-gatherer  by  the  name 

1  Henderson,  Palestine,  pp.  131,  i6l. 


230  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

of  Zacchseus  (Luke  xix.  i-io).  He  saw  this  man  in  a 
tree  as  He  was  passing  through  the  town,  and  noticing 
the  unusual  interest  which  Zacchaeus  had  in  Him,  He 
at  once  responded  to  it  by  giving  Zacchaeus  an  oppor- 
tunity to  entertain  Him.  This  opportunity  was  gladly 
embraced,  and  Zacchseus  took  Jesus  to  his  home.  The 
act  of  Jesus  was  widely  criticised  (Luke  xix.  7).  Some 
people  felt  that  it  was  wrong  for  Jesus  to  lodge  with 
a  sinner.  Just  as,  at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  in 
Galilee,  scribes  and  Pharisees  arraigned  Him  before 
His  disciples  because  He  ate  with  tax-gatherers  and 
sinners  (Mark  ii.  16,  17).  And  although  Jesus  had 
manifested  this  spirit  of  love  for  the  outcast  and 
despised  during  His  entire  ministry,  here,  near  its 
close  all  those  around  Him,  chiefly  Galileans,  mur- 
mured at  His  conduct.  They  could  not  reconcile  it 
with  His  claim,  which  shows  how  poorly  they  appre- 
ciated the  claim  itself.  They  did  not  know  that  the 
great  work  of  the  Messiah  was  to  deliver  men  from  sin. 
Hence  the  strange  fact  that  no  one,  as  far  as  our 
records  inform  us,  ever  asked  Jesus  to  forgive  his  sin. 
But  the  act  of  Jesus  in  lodging  with  Zacchaeus  was 
amply  justified  by  the  result.  Before  He  left  the 
house,  Zacchaeus,  under  a  new  impulse  begotten  by 
the  presence  of  the  Lord,  declared  that  he  would  give 
half  of  his  goods  to  the  poor,  and  would  restore  four- 
fold, if  in  any  case  he  had  collected  larger  taxes  than 
were  right.  Thus  salvation  had  come  to  his  house,  and 
was  already  manifesting  itself  in  the  outward  life. 


IN  BETHANY  AND   EPHRAIM  23 1 

As  Jesus  left^  Jericho  in  the  morning,  a  bUnd  man 
who  seems  to  have  heard  of  Him  before,  and  to  have 
believed  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  David  (Mark  x.  47,  48), 
called  on  Him  for  mercy,  and  at  the  word  of  Jesus 
received  his  sight  (Mark  x.  52). 

Third  Aiuiotincement  of  Death  and  Resiirrection. 

Somewhere  on  this  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  Jesus 
for  the  third  time  told  His  disciples  what  was  about  to 
befall  Him  (Mark  x.  32-34;  Matt.  xx.  17-19;  Luke 
xviii.  31-34).  Just  before  this,  and  perhaps  at  such  a 
juncture  of  roads  as  made  it  manifest  that  He  was  going 
to  Jerusalem,  Jesus  seems  to  have  led  the  caravan  (Mark 
X.  32).  Those  with  Him  were  amazed,  perhaps  at  His 
manifest  purpose  to  go  back  to  the  city  from  which  He 
ha.d  so  recently  fled  for  His  life  (comp.  John  xi.  8,  16), 
and  those  who  followed  Him  were  afraid,  perhaps  for 
His  safety,  perhaps  for  their  own,  if  they  should  be 
found  with  Him  in  Jerusalem.  At  this  time,  taking 
the  twelve  apart.  He  told  them  that  the  journey  they 
were  making  to  Jerusalem  would  terminate  in  His 
death,  a  shameful  death,  in  which  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles would  be  involved,  and  that  after  three  ^  days  He 
should  rise  (Mark  x.  33,  34). 


1  Luke  puts  this  incident  befo7'e  the  entry  into  Jericho,  and  Matthew 
speaks  of  two  men.  Mark's  version  of  the  incident  is  commended  by  its 
fulness  of  details. 

2  On  the  difference  between  the  Synoptists  as  to  the  time  of  the  resur- 
rection, see  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  pp.  287,  288. 


232  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Request  of  James  and  John. 

This  word  about  a  resurrection,  though  doubtless  not 
understood  (comp.  Mark  ix.  lo),  may  have  conveyed  to 
the  disciples  the  idea  of  a  victory  for  Jesus,  and  so  too  of 
the  establishment  of  His  Kingdom.  Such  a  suggestion 
may  have  brought  to  utterance  the  secret  wish  of  James 
and  John,  aided,  we  may  suppose,  by  the  ambition  of  their 
mother,  Salome,  who  was  probably  in  the  Galilean  cara- 
van (Matt.  XX.  20 ;  Mark  x.  35).  They  at  first  hesitated 
to  let  Jesus  know  what  they  wished,  —  an  evidence  that 
they  inwardly  doubted  whether  they  ought  to  make  the 
request,  —  but  then,  as  He  refused  to  promise  in  the 
dark,  they  told  their  wish  (Mark  x.  35-37).  Jesus 
replied  that  the  request  was  made  in  ignorance ;  it 
implied  that  they  were  able  to  share  His  sufferings. 
Then,  when  they  boldly  said  they  could  share  these. 
He  promised  that  they  should  indeed  share  them,  as  He 
had  repeatedly  said  in  substance  to  all  His  disciples, 
but  that  it  was  not  in  His  power  to  grant  their  request 
for  the  first  places  in  His  Kingdom  (Mark  x.  38-40). 
The  indignation  of  the  other  apostles  was  very  naturally 
aroused  by  the  attempt  of  James  and  John,  and  so  Jesus, 
almost  in  the  shadow  of  His  own  cross,  must  go  back  to 
the  lesson  which  He  had  impressed  upon  them  in  Caper- 
naum (Mark  ix.  33),  and  tell  them  again  that  the  only 
way  to  greatness  was  the  way  of  service,  in  which  way 
they  were  to  follow  Him  to  the  end. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

The  Last  Eight  Days 

The  Data. 

About  thirty-six  per  cent  of  the  combined  narrative  of 
the  four  Gospels  is  concerned  with  the  last  eight  days 
of  Jesus'  life  and  with  His  resurrection.  The  percent- 
age is  largest  in  the  Gospel  of  John  and  smallest  in  the 
Gospel  of  Luke.  Various  circumstances  help  to  explain 
the  large  amount  of  space  given  to  the  narrative  of 
these  days.  First,  Jesus  seems  to  have  filled  the  clos- 
ing days  with  intense  activity,  both  as  regards  the  Jews, 
whom  He  sought  to  save,  and  as  regards  His  disciples, 
whom  He  sought  to  prepare  for  His  death.  Second, 
the  events  and  words  of  the  last  days  of  Jesus  would 
naturally  impress  themselves  most  deeply  on  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  the  disciples,  and  so  when  the  time  to 
write  of  them  came,  a  fuller  narrative  could  be  pro- 
duced than  could  be  written  of  other  periods  of  His  hfe. 
Third,  the  apostolic  church  from  the  beginning  regarded 
the  death  of  Jesus  as  of  fundamental  importance,  and 
for  this  reason  dwelt  with  peculiar  interest  on  the  events 
immediately  connected  with  it. 

The  Arrival  in  Bethany. 

The  Synoptists  make  no  break  in  the  journey  from 
Jericho  to  Jerusalem  (Mark  x.  46-xi.   i ;  Matt.  xxi.   i ; 

233 


234  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Luke  xix.  28,  29).  They  narrate  the  triumphal  entry  in 
immediate  connection  with  the  journey  from  Jericho,  as 
though  it  fell  on  the  same  day  and  were  the  close  of  the 
journey.  But  John  says  explicitly  that  Jesus  came  to 
Bethany  six  days  before  the  Passover,  and  it  is  plain 
from  his  narrative  that  Jesus  tarried  there  a  little  while 
(John  xii.  2,  12).  The  sixth  day  before  the  Passover 
began  on  Friday  evening  of  the  preceding  week,  and  at 
this  time,  perhaps  just  at  evening,  Jesus  and  His  disci- 
ples reached  Bethany. 

The  Last  Sabbath. 

The  supper  which  was  made  for  Jesus  in  the  house  of 
Simon  "the  leper"  (Mark  xiv.  3)  is  probably  to  be 
placed  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  that  is,  according  to  our 
mode  of  speech,  the  day  after  His  arrival  in  Bethany. 
For  the  triumphal  entry  fell  on  the  day  following  that 
of  the  supper  (John  xii.  12),  and  therefore  the  supper 
cannot  have  been  on  Friday,  for  in  that  case  the  tri- 
umphal entry  would  have  come  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 
On  the  other  hand,  since  the  arrival  of  Jesus  in  Beth- 
any must  have  been  known  on  the  Sabbath,  we  cannot 
suppose  that  His  enthusiastic  friends  would  postpone 
their  reception  of  Him  any  longer  than  the  close  of  that 
sacred  day.  On  this  last  Sabbath,  then,  a  supper  was 
made  for  Jesus  in  the  house  of  a  certain  Simon,  who 
had  once  been  a  leper,  and  whom  Jesus  may  have 
healed.  Of  this  supper,  the  narrative  in  John  is  fuller 
than  that  of  Mark  and  Matthew  (Mark  xiv.  3-9 ;  Matt. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  235 

xxvi.  6-13),  and  is  probably  to  be  followed  in  points 
where  it  differs  from  theirs. 

The  event  that  made  the  supper  memorable  was  the 
act  of  Mary.  Taking  a  pound  of  very  precious 
ointment,  she  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  afterward 
wiping  them  with  her  hair  (John  xii.  3).  The  fragrance 
of  the  spikenard  filled  the  whole  house.  The  ointment 
used  was  valued  at  about  fifty  dollars,  and  some  of  the 
disciples,  perhaps  only  Judas  (John  xii.  4),  murmured  at 
what  they  thought  wasteful  extravagance.  Jesus,  how- 
ever, rebuked  them,  and  justified  Mary's  act.  He  said 
it  was  a  beautiful  deed  and  should  be  her  memorial  in 
all  the  earth  (Mark  xiv.  6,  9;  Matt.  xxvi.  10,  13).  If  it 
seemed  extravagant,  it  was  yet  fitting  as  a  farewell 
service  to  Him.  They  would  have  frequent  opportu- 
nities to  give  to  the  poor,  but  not  to  give  to  Him. 

He  made  a  still  more  pointed  reference  to  His  death, 
saying,  according  to  John,  that  Mary  should  be  allowed 
to  keep  the  ointment,  naturally  that  which  had  not  been 
used  —  keep  it  for  the  day  of  His  burial  (John  xii.  7). 
According  to  the  Synoptists,  Jesus  said  that  in  anointing 
His  body,  she  had  done  it  for  His  burial.  Thus,  in 
either  case.  He  intimated  that  His  death  was  near. 
The  suggestion  that  the  ointment  may  have  been 
purchased  to  anoint  Lazarus,  but  was  not  needed  as 
Jesus  raised  him  from  the  dead,  has  against  it  that  such 
anointing  of  the  body  would  surely  not  have  been  left 
until  the  fourth  day.  Further,  it  is  not  probable  that  so 
large  an  amount  of  ointment  remained  after  the  body 


236  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

had  been  anointed.     It  is  therefore  to  be  regarded  as 
purchased  especially  for  the  anointing  of  Jesus. 

It  may  well  have  been  on  this  Sabbath  that  Judas 
bargained  with  the  chief  priests  to  betray  Jesus  (Mark 
xiv.  10,  11;  Matt.  xxvi.  14-16;  Luke  xxii.  3-6).  The 
Synoptists  mention  this  in  connection  with  the  supper 
in  Simon's  house ;  and  the  statement  that  Judas  was 
seeking  (i^rjTei)  to  deliver  Jesus  to  them  is  favorable  to 
the  view  that  he  had  the  plot  in  mind  at  least  so  long  as 
from  the  Sabbath  until  Thursday.  The  rebuke  which 
he  with  others,  perhaps  he  alone,  had  received  from 
Jesus  at  Simon's  house,  and  the  explicit  reference  by 
Jesus  to  His  own  burial,  may  have  been  the  last  influ- 
ences which  sent  him  to  the  high  priests.  It  must  have 
been  growing  more  and  more  plain  to  him  since  the 
crisis  in  Capernaum  that  Jesus  was  not  the  Messiah  of 
the  popular  expectation,  which  expectation  Judas  may 
well  have  shared.  He  saw  that  the  fate  of  Jesus  was 
settled,  and  he  might  argue  that  his  own  action  would 
not  alter  matters.  At  the  same  time,  Jesus'  extremity 
was  his  opportunity.  If  the  fate  of  Jesus  was  settled 
beyond  a  peradventure,  he  might  as  well  turn  it  to  his 
own  account  if  he  could. 

The  Day  of  the  Triumphal  Entry. 

The  great  question  in  the  days  just  before  the  last 
Passover,  as  people  met  in  the  temple,  was  whether 
Jesus  would  come  to  the  feast  (John  xi.  56).  The 
raising   of    Lazarus   two   or  three   weeks   before   had 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  237 

created  the  deepest  interest,  both  friendly  and  hostile. 
There  were  many  among  the  pilgrims  and  some  of  the 
Jerusalemites  who,  though  little  understanding  the 
spirit  of  Jesus,  were  ready  to  hail  him  as  the  Son  of 
David ;  but  the  dominant  elements  in  Jerusalem  were 
organized  to  kill  Him.  The  leaders  issued  an  order 
before  the  Passover,  probably  while  Jesus  was  still 
hiding  in  Ephraim,  that  if  any  man  knew  where  Jesus 
was  he  should  make  it  known  (John  xi.  57). 

TJie  Escort  from  Jerusalem. 

With  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  a  great 
multitude  took  palm  branches  and  went  forth  from  Je- 
rusalem to  meet  Jesus  (John  xii.  12-19).  They  had 
heard  of  the  great  sign  which  He  had  wrought;  they 
knew  that  He  had  come  to  Bethany,  and  had  heard  that 
He  was  coming  to  Jerusalem.  So  they  went  forth 
ready  to  welcome  Him  as  the  King  of  Israel.  The 
palm  branches  in  their  hands  were  probably  a  symbol 
of  gladness  (Lev.  xxiii.  40 ;  Rev.  vii.  9). 

The  Synoptists  do  not  mention  this  escort  from  the 
city,  but  their  language  implies  it  when  they  speak  of 
throngs  going  before  Jesus  as  well  as  of  throngs  who 
followed  Him  (Mark  xi.  9 ;  Matt.  xxi.  9).  Those  goiiig 
before  are  the  multitude  who,  according  to  John,  came 
forth  to  meet  Jesus.  On  meeting  Him,  they  turned 
about  and  formed  the  head  of  the  procession.  Jesus 
was  then  in  the  midst,  His  disciples  and  friends  from 
Bethany  following. 


238  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

The  Messianic  Entry. 

Jesus  left  Bethany  on  foot,  but  at  some  point,  perhaps 
on  reaching  the  brow  of  Ohvet  whence  He  saw  the 
multitudes  with  palm  branches  coming  to  meet  Him, 
He  halted,  and  sent  two  of  His  disciples  to  biing  a 
young  ass  (Mark  xi.  i  ;  Matt.  xxi.  i  ;  Luke  xix.  29).  It 
is  possible  that  Jesus  adopted  this  mode  of  entering 
Jerusalem  in  memory  of  the  words  of  Zechariah,  of 
which  in  this  hour  He  saw  a  fulfilment  (Zech.  ix.  9). 
The  disciples,  however,  saw  no  special  significance  in  it 
until  a  later  day  (John  xii.  16). 

It  is  the  opinion  of  some  writers  ^  that  the  Synoptists 
represent  Jesus  as  miraculously  procuring  the  ass,  an 
idea  which  is  certainly  not  found  in  John's  narrative. 
But  the  Synoptic  narrative  allows  us  to  suppose  that 
the  village  ''  over  against  you  "  was  Bethany,  which  they 
had  just  left ;  and  when  Jesus  tells  His  disciples  to  say 
to  the  owner  that  "the  Lord  has  need  of  it,"  it  is  im- 
plied that  the  owner  would  know  who  was  meant  by  this 
designation ;  in  other  words  it  is  impUed  that  he  was  a 
friend  of  Jesus  (Mark  xi.  3  ;  Matt.  xxi.  3 ;  Luke  xix. 
31).  Jesus  may  have  seen  the  ass  as  He  came  out 
from  Bethany,  therefore  it  is  not  necessary  to  hold  that 
the  Synoptists  regarded  the  securing  of  the  ass  as 
miraculous. 

Matthew's  representation  that  there  was  an  ass,  and 
also  its  colt,  and  that  Jesus  sat  upon  them  (Matt.  xxi.  7), 
seems   to  be  a  modification  of   the  narrative  due  to  a 

1  E.g.,  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  374. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  239 

misunderstanding  of  the  prophetic  passage  which  the 
disciples  afterward  saw  fulfilled  in  the  triumphal  entry 
(John  xii.  16).  Zechariah  manifestly  speaks  of  but  one 
ass,  which  was  all  that  was  needed  for  one  person  to 
ride,  but  he  speaks  of  this  twice  in  the  paralleHsm  of 
his  joyful  words  :  — 

"  Lowly  and  riding  upon  an  ass, 
Even  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass." 

Seated  on  the  ass,  Jesus  moved  toward  Jerusalem, 
preceded  and  followed  by  excited  and  jubilant  throngs. 
He  was  hailed  as  the  Son  of  David  and  the  King  of 
Israel  (Matt.  xxi.  9  ;  John  xii.  13).  Mention  was  made 
of  His  mighty  works,  and  the  kingdom  of  David  was 
hailed  as  now  at  hand  (Luke  xix.  37  ;  Mark  xi.  10). 
For  one  hour  the  multitudes  verily  thought  that  they 
had  the  Messiah  of  their  long  and  fond  hopes.  The 
scene  was  somewhat  parallel  to  that  by  Lake  Galilee, 
when,  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  people 
wanted  to  make  Jesus  their  king  (John  vi.  15). 

But  really  the  Messiah  of  their  hopes  should  have 
entered  the  city  on  a  fiery  horse,  the  animal  used 
in   war,    and   not   on    an   ass,    the    symbol    rather    of 

peace. 

This  entry  was  not  without  its  sharp  contrasts,  as  was 
the  life  of  Jesus  throughout.  For  here,  in  the  midst 
of  the  jubilation,  Jesus  wept  (Luke  xix.  41-44)-  He  well 
knew  that  the  city  which  He  was  entering  in  triumph 
was  at  heart  opposed  to  Him,  and  He  saw  what  this 


240  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

opposition  would  bring  upon  it  in  coming  days.  Jeru- 
salem was  more  to  Him,  as  to  every  true  Jew,  than  any 
other  city.  It  was  the  city  of  His  fathers,  the  city  of 
Jehovah,  the  city  of  many  holy  memories,  and  therefore 
at  the  thought  of  its  persistent  unbelief  and  its  swiftly 
approaching  destruction  He  wept. 

Another  contrast  was  presented  when  Pharisees  spoke 
to  Jesus,  and  asked  Him  to  silence  the  shouting  of  His 
disciples,  who  were  hailing  Him  as  the  Messiah  (Luke 
xix.  39,  40).  Jesus  replied  that  the  praise  was  fitting, 
that  it  was  His  due,  an  obUgation  so  imperative  that, 
were  it  not  met,  the  stones  might  cry  out. 

When  Jesus  entered  the  city  and  moved  toward  the 
temple,  the  city  was  greatly  stirred.  The  question  was 
heard  on  every  hand,  ''Who  is  this.^"  (Matt.  xxi.  10). 
And  the  answer  came,  "  This  is  the  prophet,  Jesus, 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee."  It  was  perfectly  manifest 
that  the  accompanying  throngs  believed  Him  to  be  more 
than  a  prophet,  but  they  gave  this  personal  and  local 
designation  because  that  was  just  what  the  questioners 
wanted  to  know.  They  wanted  to  find  out  who  was 
being  hailed  as  Messiah. 

It  may  well  have  been  on  this  first  day  of  the  week 
that  Jesus,  who  had  entered  the  city  as  the  Messiah, 
wrought  the  cures  which  Matthew  records  (Matt.  xxi. 
14).  The  blind  and  the  lame  came  to  Him,  and  He 
healed  them.  These  were  the  last  acts  of  healing,  and 
the  only  ones  which  the  record  puts  in  the  temple. 

The  chief  priests  and  scribes,  who  could  not  openly 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  24 1 

seize  Jesus  when  He  was  surrounded  by  such  throngs 
of  enthusiastic  followers,  rebuked  Him  for  allowing  the 
children  to  salute  Him  as  the  Son  of  David  (Matt.  xxi. 
15,  16),  They  did  not  consider  Him  the  Son  of  David, 
and  thought  He  had  no  right  to  consider  Himself  in 
that  light.  His  answer  was  a  justification  of  the  chil- 
dren from  the  Eighth  Psalm,  where,  in  highly  poetical 
language,  it  is  said  :  — 

"Out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  hast  Thou  established 
strength, 
Because  of  Thine  adversaries, 
That  Thou  mightest  still  the  enemy  and  the  avenger." 

But  if  even  babes  and  sucklings  contribute  to  the 
glory  of  God  so  that  His  enemies  are  discomfited,  much 
more  is  He  glorified  in  the  praises  rendered  to  His  Son 
by  these  children,  who  are  old  enough  to  shout  intelli- 
gent hosannas  to  the  Son  of  David. 

At  evening  Jesus  with  the  twelve  returned  to  Beth- 
any, where  He  lodged  (Mark  xi.  11). 

From  Monday  to    Wednesday. 

It  seems  plain  that  Jesus  spent  Thursday  of  the  last 
week  outside  the  city  (Mark  xiv.  12-17),  but  it  is  not 
certain  whether  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  was  the  last 
day  of  public  activity  in  Jerusalem.  It  seems  on  the 
whole  probable  that  He  continued  His  teaching  until 
Wednesday,  which  He  certainly  could  do  as  far  as  the 
hostility  of  the  Pharisees  was  concerned,  because  the 
common  people  were  so  largely  in  sympathy  with  Him. 


242  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

The  leaders  feared  to  seize  Him  during  the  feast,  lest 
there  should  be  a  tumult  (Mark  xiv.  2). 

Of  the  incidents  which  belong  in  these  three  days,  a 
few  are  definitely  located  (Mark  xi.  12;  xiv.  i),  but  the 
exact  time  of  most  is  not  determinable. 

The  Barren  Fig  Tree. 

It  was  on  Monday  morning,  as  Jesus  with  His  dis- 
ciples was  going  into  the  city  from  Bethany,  that  He 
spoke  significant  words  regarding  a  fig  tree  (Mark  xi. 
12  ;  Matt.  xxi.  18).  The  tree  stood  at  a  little  distance 
from  the  road,  and  since  it  promised  fruit,  Jesus  turned 
aside  and  came  to  it  (Mark  xi.  13).  But  as  it  had  no 
fruit,  He  solemnly  declared  that  no  one  should  ever  eat 
fruit  from  it  (Mark  xi.  14).  It  was  not  then  the  season 
for  figs,  but  one  might  expect  them,  since  this  particular 
tree  had  put  forth  leaves,  and  in  the  fig  tree  there  should 
be  fruit  when  there  are  leaves. 

As  on  another  occasion  (Luke  xiii.  6),  so  here,  the 
fig  tree  seems  to  have  symbolized  the  Jewish  nation. 
This  also  had  put  forth  leaves,  in  that  it  had  at  first 
accepted  Jesus  ;  but  it  had  borne  no  fruit  of  repentance 
and  spiritual  faith  in  Him.  Hence  in  declaring  the 
doom  of  the  tree.  He  declared  the  doom  of  the  nation, 
or  rather  of  that  generation  of  the  Jewish  people. 

On  the  morning  after  this  incident  (Mark  xi.  20),  as 
Jesus  and  His  disciples  went  to  the  city,  the  fig  tree  was 
dry  and  withered.^ 

1  The  narrative  of  Matthew  appears  to  put  the  withering  of  the  tree  in 
the  moment  when  Jesus  spoke  its  doom.     The  disciples  marvelled  because 


THE  LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  243 

If  the  withering  of  the  tree  was  miraculously  caused, 
then,  in  analogy  with  the  miracles  of  the  Gospel  in 
general,  we  must  suppose  that  it  was  caused  by  the  will 
of  Jesus,  and  not  that  it  was  wrought  by  God,i  ^part 
from  Jesus.  But  Jesus  did  not  say  that  it  should  wither 
away.  The  fate  which  He  announced  was  permanent 
barrenness  (Mark  xi.  14;  Matt.  xxi.  19).  The  fact  that 
the  tree  had  leaves  at  so  early  a  day,  and  also  that  it 
had  no  fruit,  suggests  that  its  hfe  was  not  normal,  but 
in  some  wise  diseased.  It  is  possible  then  that  its 
withering  away  was  due  to  some  natural  cause.  If  so, 
then  its  fate  was  a  providential  confirmation  of  the 
word  of  Jesus. 

In  line  with  the  lesson  of  the  fig  tree  are  certain 
parables  of  judgment  which  seem  to  belong  in  the  last 
three  days.  These  are  the  parables  of  The  Vineyard 
(Mark  xii.  1-12;  Matt.  xxi.  33-46;  Luke  xx.  9-18),  The 
King's  Marriage  Feast  (Matt.  xxii.  1-14;  Luke  xiv. 
15-24),  and  that  of  The  Unlike  Sons  (Matt.  xxi.  28-32). 
These  were  spoken  in  the  hearing  of  Pharisees  and 
priests,  and  were  primarily  for  them.  All  reflect  the 
near  doom  of  the  Jewish  people,  which  was  coming 
upon  them  because  they  had  refused  the  invitation  of 
Jesus,  and  were  about  to  put  Him  to  death.  The 
parable  of  The  Unlike  Sons  sets  forth  just  the  thought 
which  was  illustrated  by  the  fig  tree  that  promised  well 

the  tree  withered  so  soon,  and  not,  as  in  Mark,  because  of  the  simple  fact 
of  its  withering.     Matthew's  narrative  is  condensed,  and  perhaps  its  varia- 
tion from  Mark  is  more  or  less  due  to  this  circumstance. 
1  Comp.  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  H.  458. 


244  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

but  gave  no  fruit.  For  the  Jewish  people  are  here 
Hkened  to  the  son  who  said  he  would  go  but  went  not. 
They  had  welcomed  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  but  it  was 
only  with  their  lips. 

Last  Public  Teaching . 

All  the  evangelists  have  traces  of  public  teaching  by 
Jesus  that  belonged  in  these  last  days.  According  to 
Luke  Jesus  taught  daily  in  the  temple,  and  people 
hung  upon  Him  in  rapt  attention  (Luke  xix.  48).  They 
came  early  in  the  morning  to  hear  Him  (Luke  xxi.  38). 
Mark  says  that  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  feared 
Jesus  because  the  multitude  were  deeply  impressed  by 
His  teaching  (Mark  xi.  18),  and  his  statement  does  not 
refer  to  one  single  occasion,  but  is  general  in  character. 
Luke  does  not  give  the  content  of  one  of  these  last 
sermons  to  the  people,  neither  does  Matthew  nor  Mark ; 
yet  we  are  doubtless  right  in  holding  that  Jesus 
preached  the  Gospel  of  His  Kingdom  even  as  He  had 
been  doing  for  two  years.  John  preserves  the  sub- 
stance of  one  of  these  addresses,  in  which  Jesus 
declared  His  peculiar  relation  to  God,  as  one  sent  by 
Him  with  power  to  save  the  world  (John  xii.  44-50). 
His  word  is  God's  word,  and  to  reject  it  now  means 
that  one  must  be  judged  by  it  hereafter. 

The  words  spoken  by  Jesus  when  certain  Greeks 
came  to  see  Him  may  also  be  taken  as  expressing 
thoughts  that  filled  His  heart  during  these  days  (John 
xii.  20-36).      He  spoke  of  Himself  as  the  light  of  the 


THE  LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  245 

world,  and  called  on  men  to  walk  in  this  light.  His 
words  were  full  of  allusions  to  His  near  death,  though 
in  symbolical  form.  Now,  for  the  first  time.  He  speaks 
of  the  hour  of  His  death  as  the  hour  of  His  glorifica- 
tion (John  xii.  23,  28).  He  is  as  the  kernel  of  grain 
which  through  death  bears  a  harvest  (John  xii.  24). 
Yet  He  cannot  contemplate  this  way  to  the  consum- 
mation without  inward  struggle.  His  soul  was  troubled 
(John  xii.  27).  Should  He  ask  to  be  saved  from  the 
hour.?  The  query  was  human  and  natural.  But  He 
recognized  that  His  course  had  all  along  been  tending 
to  this  very  end,  and  therefore  He  would  not  ask  to  be 
saved  from  it.  His  prayer  is  rather  that  through  it 
God  would  glorify  His  own  name. 

It  was  at  this  time  that  Jesus'  hopefulness  for  the 
future  of  His  cause  found  its  sublimest  expression.  By 
the  side  of  His  own  glorification,  and  due  to  the  same 
cause,  that  is.  His  death.  He  sees  the  judgment  of  the 
prince  of  the  world,  the  casting  him  out  of  his  dominion. 
But  in  proportion  as  this  is  accomplished,  all  men  will 
be  drawn  unto  Jesus  (John  xii.  31,  32). 

The  Opposition. 

Question  of  Authority. 

The  easy  superiority  of  Jesus  over  the  combined 
shrewdness  of  scribes,  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  Herodians, 
and  priests,  as  well  as  the  vigor  with  which  the  enemies 
sought  to  compass  His  ruin  in  these  last  days,  appears 
in  the  series  of  questions  put  to  Him  by  the  leaders. 


246  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

A  concerted  effort  was  made  by  priests,  scribes,  and 
elders  to  destroy  Jesus'  influence  with  the  people  by 
showing  that  He  had  no  autJiority  for  His  course  (Mark 
xi.  27-33;  Matt.  xxi.  23-27;  Luke  xx.  1-8).  They 
came  upon  Him  suddenly  in  the  temple,  and  challenged 
Him  to  produce  His  credentials,  knowing  well  that  He 
could  produce  no  credentials  of  rabbinic  and  ecclesias- 
tical ordination.  Jesus  silenced  them  with  a  counter 
question  to  which  they  could  not  answer  j/£?i-  or  no^  with- 
out either  stultifying  themselves  or  bringing  upon  them 
the  hostility  of  the  people.  He  asked  after  the  source 
of  John's  baptism.  Their  own  hostile  attitude  toward 
John  did  not  allow  them  to  say  that  his  baptism  was 
from  heaven.  They  saw  that  if  they  admitted  this, 
Jesus  might  turn  upon  them,  and  ask  why  they  had  not 
received  him.  And  their  fear  of  the  people  who  held 
John  to  be  a  true  prophet  prevented  their  saying  that 
his  baptism  was  of  human  origin,  as  in  their  hearts  they 
would  have  liked  to  do.  When  Jesus  had  silenced 
them.  He  declared  that  the  pubHcans  and  harlots  would 
be  saved  sooner  than  they.  For  the  publicans  and  har- 
lots had  been  moved  to  repentance  by  John,  while  tJiey 
had  not  believed  him  (Matt.  xxi.  31,  32).  There  is  a 
saying  of  Luke  which  may  belong  here  (vii.  29,  30), 
and  if  so,  then  some  of  the  people,  even  some  of  the 
publicans  whom  John  had  baptized,  were  present  and 
heard  how  Jesus  silenced  the  Pharisees  and  scribes. 
Naturally  they  were  pleased,  and  glorified  God. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  247 

Question  of  Tribiite. 

A  second  attempt  to  gain  advantage  over  Jesus  was 
made  on  one  of  these  three  days  by  disciples  of   the 
Pharisees  and  by  Herodians  (Mark  xii.   13-17;    Matt. 
xxii.    15-22;    Luke  xx.  20-26).      These   were   mutual 
enemies,  but   they  were  united   by  a  greater  common 
enemy.     They  first  sought  by  flattery  of  Jesus  to  estab- 
lish a  friendly  feeling  toward  themselves,  and  then  they 
put  the  question  whether  it  was  lawful  to  give  tribute 
to  Csesar.      They  hoped  to  catch  Him  howsoever  He 
might  answer.      If   He  said  j/es,  the  Pharisees  might 
charge  Him  with  being  a  traitor  to  His  people ;  and  if 
He  said  no,  the  Herodians  might  bring  a  pohtical  accu- 
sation against  Him.     So   in  either  case  He  would   be 
entrapped.     This  time  also  He  silenced   His  enemies, 
and  did  it  with  an  answer  which  recognized  the  claims 
both  of  Jehovah  and  Caesar.     The  coins  in  their  pockets 
were  evidence  that  they  owed  something  to  Caesar;  and 
the   payment   of   their  dues  to  Caesar  did  not  conflict 
with  their  duty  to  render  to  Jehovah  what  they  owe 
unto  Him.      They  have   two   masters,  but  not  in  the 
same  sphere ;  hence  they  can  serve  both. 

Of  course  this  answer  did  not  satisfy  the  Pharisees. 
Their  deep  rehgious  hatred  of  foreign  rule  could  not  be 
overcome  by  a  mere  declaration  of  their  enemy ;  but  at 
the  same  time,  this  declaration  thwarted  them.  There 
were  Caesar's  image  and  inscription  on  their  money. 
They  confess  it,  and  hence  they  cannot  deny  that  Caesar 
has  certain  well-grounded  claims  upon  them. 


248  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

It  is  manifest  that,  in  answering  as  He  did,  Jesus  did 
not  indorse  the  Roman  government,  neither  did  He 
intimate  that  He  was  satisfied  to  have  the  Jews  ruled 
by  a  foreign  power.  He  simply  recognized  that,  at 
present,  the  Jews  had  certain  obligations  to  Caesar,  and 
that  the  fulfilment  of  these  obligations  did  not  interfere 
with  the  worship  and  service  of  God. 

Question  of  Resurrection. 

The  Sadducees  sought  to  entangle  Jesus  by  showing 
the  inconsistency  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
which  they  knew  that  He  held  in  common  with  the 
Pharisees  (Mark  xii.  18-27;  Matt.  xxii.  23-33;  Luke 
XX.  27-38).  They  laid  before  Him  the  case  of  a  woman 
who  had  had  seven  legal  husbands,  and  asked  to  which 
of  them  she  would  belong  in  the  resurrection.  They 
thought  this  simple  case  reduced  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  to  an  absurdity.  They  assume  that  she 
cannot  belong  to  all  of  the  seven,  for  that  would  be  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  Moses,  which  law  they  supposed  to 
be  binding  in  eternity  ;  ^  and  they  assume  that  she  must 
belong  to  one  of  them.  Jesus  met  the  case  with  the 
statement  that  in  the  resurrection  the  old  earthly  rela- 
tions are  discontinued.  People  no  longer  marry  nor 
are  given  in  marriage,  but  they  are  as  angels.  The 
Sadducees  had  assumed  that  if  there  be  a  future  world, 
the  same  order  of  things  must  obtain  there  as  in  the 
present.      Thus   they  had  limited   the  power   of   God 

1  V^theXfJUdische  Theologie^  p.  i8. 


THE  LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  249 

(Mark  xii.  24).  Jesus  simply  denied  the  truth  of  their 
premise,  and  their  case  fell  to  the  ground. 

He  then  proceeded  to  give  a  Scripture  proof  that  the 
dead  are  raised.  He  took  His  text  from  the  law,  which 
they  also  claimed  to  believe,  though  they  denied  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  He  referred  them  to 
Jehovah's  words  spoken  to  Moses  out  of  the  bush,  "  I 
am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob"  (Ex.  iii.  6).  Now  Jesus  lays  down  as  a  self- 
evident  truth  that  God  is  not  God  of  dead  men,  but  of 
living  men.  This  is  virtually  His  argument.  His  con- 
ception of  God  is  such  that  He  can  in  no  circumstances 
speak  of  Him  as  God  of  the  dead.  But  if  He  is  God 
of  living  ones  only,  and  if  He  says  that  He  is  God  of 
Abraham,  then  Abraham  is  living,  that  is  to  say,  he 
has  arisen  from  the  dead. 

But  the  argument  of  Jesus  is  general.  He  does  not 
say,  concerning  the  good,  that  they  rise ;  but  "  concern- 
ing the  dead,  that  they  rise,"  that  is,  the  bad  no  less 
than  the  good.  Therefore  His  argument  seems  to  be 
that  God  is  in  Himself  such  an  one  that  He  cannot 
enter  into  personal  relation  with  a  being  who  is  not  im- 
mortal like  Himself. 

TJie  Greatest  Commandment. 

Yet  another  question  was  propounded  to  Jesus,  but 
it  is  not  plain  that  there  was  any  hostile  thought  behind 
it.  According  to  Matthew  it  was  brought  forward  by 
a  lawyer  to  tempt  Jesus  (Matt.  xxii.  34,  35);  but  accord- 


2 so  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

ing  to  Mark  the  scribe  was  drawn  to  ask  his  question 
by  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  had  answered  other  ques- 
tions (Mark  xii.  28).  Here  is  no  suggestion  of  hostility. 
The  reply  of  Jesus,  who  tells  the  scribe  that  he  is  not 
far  from  the  Kingdom  of  God  (Mark  xii.  34),  is  unfavor- 
able to  the  view  that  he  had  come  with  hostile  intent. 
It  is,  however,  possible  that,  though  friendly  himself, 
he  was  sent  by  those  who  were  hostile. 

His  question  regarded  the  first,  or  greatest,  of  the 
commandments,  not  the  first  of  the  ten,  but  the  first  of 
the  613  which  the  Jews  counted.  The  answer  of  Jesus 
was  a  comprehensive  summing  up  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  two  commandments,  first,  to  love  God  with  all  the 
heart,  and  second,  to  love  the  neighbor  as  one's  self.  It 
gave  no  room  for  controversy  and  subtle  hair-splitting, 
for  which  the  enemies  were  watching. 

A  CoTinter  Question. 

When  Jesus  had  answered  the  questions  of  scribes 
and  Pharisees  and  Sadduces,  He  in  turn  asked  them  a 
question,  not,  as  it  appears,  that  He  might  learn  from 
them,  and  surely  not  that  He  might  gain  a  victory  over 
them,  but  that  He  might  give  them  new  light  in  regard 
to  Himself.  He  asked  whose  Son  the  Messiah  was, 
and  they  promptly  replied,  "David's"  (Matt.  xxii.  41). 
This  answer  was  just  what  He  expected,  and  served  as 
an  introduction  to  the  real  question  in  His  mind.  If 
the  Messiah  is  David's  son,  as  they  say,  how  then  is  it 
that  David  calls  him  Lord,  as  he  does  in  Psalm  ex  }    No 


THE   LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  25 1 

one  could  answer  the  question.  But  any  serious  hearer 
might  readily  infer  that,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  the 
Messiah  was  of  far  higher  dignity  than  David.  And 
since  they  knew  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah, 
they  would  not  miss  the  significant  intimation  of  the 
words  which  He  had  quoted,  that  Jehovah  would  put 
His  enemies  under  His  feet.  Here  then  is  an  under- 
tone of  warning  to  the  men  who  are  seeking  His 
destruction,  as  well  as  an  implied  claim  of  more  than 
Davidic  authority. 

Mark,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative  which  records 
Jesus'  superiority  to  all  the  proud  religious  leaders,  says 
that  the  great  throng  (0  ttoXl/?  o;^A,o?)  heard  Him  gladly, 
that  is,  the  crowd  of  people  who  were  present  were 
glad  to  hear  Jesus  silence  these  men  who  claimed  to 
have  so  much  knowledge,  and  who  demanded  the  highest 
honors  from  the  common  people  (Mark  xii.  37). 

Warnings  against  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 

Because  of  the  crowd  of  people  who  heard  Jesus 
gladly  during  these  last  days,  the  leaders  dared  not 
attempt  His  arrest  and  destruction,  even  though  He 
denounced  them  in  scathing  terms.  Mark  says  that 
Jesus  warned  the  people  against  the  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees, who  were  proud  and  avaricious  and  hypocritical 
(Mark  xii.  38-40).  Matthew  has  not  only  a  warning 
against  scribes  and  Pharisees  (Matt,  xxiii.  1-12),  but 
also  a  comprehensive  denunciation  of  the  spirit  and 
life  of  scribes  and  Pharisees  (Matt,  xxiii.  13-31),  an  an- 


252  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

nouncement  of  judgment  (Matt,  xxiii.  32-36),  and  a 
parting  word  to  Jerusalem  in  which  tender  love  blends 
with  the  thought  of  a  desolate  and  dark  future  (Matt. 
xxiii.  37-39;  Luke  xiii.  34,  35).  It  is  quite  probable 
that  some  of  these  words  were  spoken  at  other  times 
in  the  life  of  Jesus,  and,  it  may  be,  far  from  the  temple 
and  from  Jerusalem.  It  is  well  known  that  the  first 
evangelist  arranges  the  sayings  of  Jesus  topically  rather 
than  chronologically.  But  it  seems  plain  that  Jesus, 
perhaps  on  the  last  day  of  His  teaching  in  the  temple, 
spoke  some  severe  words  of  condemnation  and  warning 
to  the  religious  leaders  of  Israel.  This  is  analogous 
to  the  woes  which  He  pronounced  over  the  lake  cities 
of  Galilee  as  He  was  about  to  depart  from  them  never 
to  return. 

To  the  last  day  in  the  temple  may  also  belong  the 
incident  of  the  poor  widow  who  cast  a  farthing  into  the 
treasury  ;  if  so,  it  illustrates  how,  even  in  a  time  of  great 
excitement  and  great  personal  peril,  Jesus  could  serenely 
observe  the  details  of  human  life  about  Him,  and  make 
them  contribute  to  the  instruction  of  His  disciples  (Mark 
xii.  41-44;  Luke  xxi.  1-4). 

Departure  from  the   Temple. 

As  Jesus  went  forth  from  the  temple  the  last  time, 
one  of  His  disciples  called  His  attention  to  its  great 
stones  and  wondrous  buildings  (Mark  xiii.  i  ;  Matt.  xxiv. 
I  ;  Luke  xxi.  5).  No  special  occasion  for  the  remark 
of  the  disciple  need  be  sought.     The  beauty  of  Herod's 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  253 

temple  was  proverbial,  and  must  have  called  forth  fre- 
quent exclamations  of  wonder  and  delight,  especially 
from  the  Jews  who  lived  in  distant  parts  of  the  land  and 
who  consequently  saw  the  temple  but  seldom.  Josephus 
says  that  the  stones  of  which  the  temple  was  built  were 
twenty-five  cubits  long  (approximately  thirty-eight  feet), 
eight  cubits  high,  and  about  twelve  cubits  wide.^  Jesus 
replied  to  the  disciples'  word  of  wonder  at  the  magnifi- 
cence of  the  temple,  that  one  stone  of  it  should  not  be 
left  upon  another.  A  little  later,  on  the  Mount  of  Ol- 
ives, the  disciples  asked  Jesus  when  this  prophecy  which 
they  had  just  heard  would  be  fulfilled.  Jesus  then  spoke 
at  some  length  of  the  future  —  the  future  of  His  King- 
dom, the  future  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  future  of  His 
disciples  (Mark  xiii.  5-32  ;  Matt,  xxiv-xxv ;  Luke  xxi. 
8-36).2  With  His  teaching  here,  as  elsewhere,  we  are 
not  now  concerned,  except  as  it  has  some  definite  bear- 
ing upon  His  biography. 

The  disciples  asked  when  the  temple  should  be 
destroyed,  and,  according  to  Matthew,  what  should  be 
the  sign  of  the  coming  of  Jesus  and  of  the  end  of  the 
age.  The  stress  of  the  reply  of  Jesus  was.  Take  heed  : 
be  watchful;  be  ready  (Mark  xiii.  5,  9,  13,  23,  etc.). 
Their  question  was  more  curious  than  important :  His 
answer  was  practical.  He  not  only  laid  stress  on  their 
personal  readiness  for  great  events  of  the  future,  but  He 

1  Antiquities,  xv.  1 1.  3. 

-  It  is  probable  that  some  of  Matthew's  material  belongs  elsewhere,  e.g. 
the  parable  of  The  Pounds  (Matt.  xxv.  14-30). 


254  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

gave  no  precise  answers  to  their  chronological  questions. 
One  question,  He  said,  He  could  not  answer,  namely, 
the  question  of  the  time  of  His  coming  (Mark  xiii.  32  ; 
Matt.  xxiv.  36).  That  is  known  to  the  Father  only.  If 
it  was  not  important  that  Jesus  should  know  it,  surely 
His  disciples  needed  not  to  trouble  themselves  in  regard 
to  it.  But  while  it  is  thus  plain  that  the  knowledge  of 
Jesus  was  limited,  it  is  also  equally  clear  that  in  regard 
to  His  future,  as  in  regard  to  some  other  questions  in 
His  life,  He  was  given  supernatural  knowledge.  He 
foresaw  that  the  temple  would  be  utterly  destroyed, 
apparently  within  that  generation  (Mark  xiii.  2,  30).  He 
foresaw  also  that  He  should  come  again  in  glory  to 
gather  His  people  to  Himself  and  to  judge  the  wicked 
(Mark  xiii.  24-27;  Matt.  xxiv.  29-31,  etc.). 

It  is  thought  by  some  scholars  that  Jesus  regarded 
His  coming  as  much  nearer  than  it  really  was,  and 
there  are  words  in  the  narrative  which  seem  to  give 
some  support  to  this  view  {e.g.  Mark  xiii.  24,  30;  Matt. 
xxiv.  39,  42 ;  Luke  xxi.  28).  On  the  other  hand,  there 
are  not  a  few  words  of  Jesus  which  plainly  teach  that 
He  put  the  end  of  this  age  at  a  vast  remove  from  the 
present^  It  seems,  therefore,  more  probable  that  the 
early  Christians  misunderstood  the  references  of  Jesus 
to  the  nearness  of  His  coming,  than  that  He  Himself 
was  mistaken. 

1  Bruce,  The  Kingdojn  of  God,  p.  274  f. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  255 

The  Last  Thursday. 

TJie  Chronological  Problem. 

John  and  the  Synoptists  seem  to  be  at  variance  re- 
garding the  date  of  the  Last  Supper.  The  first  three 
Gospels  agree  that  it  occurred  on  the  15th  of  Nisan,  the 
time  fixed  by  the  law  for  the  feast  of  the  Passover 
(Ex.  xii.  6).  The  legal  expression  is  ''  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  month  at  even,"  but  at  sunset  of  the  14th, 
according  to  Jewish  reckoning,  the  15th  day  began. 
Hence  the  first  three  Gospels  teach  that  the  Last  Sup- 
per, which  they  put  on  the  same  evening  with  the 
Passover,  was  on  the  evening  of  Thursday  and  the  cru- 
cifixion on  Friday,  but  both  on  the  15th  of  the  month 
(e.g.  Mark  xiv.  12,  18,  26,  43  ;  xv.  i,  24,  42). 

John's  statement  seems  to  be  in  conflict  with  this. 
In  xiii.  I  he  places  before  the  Passover  that  final  proof 
of  Jesus'  love,  His  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet,  and, 
on  the  same  evening,  the  announcement,  by  Jesus,  that 
one  of  the  twelve  should  betray  Him,  which,  according 
to  the  Synoptists,  was  made  on  the  evening  when  that 
Supper  was  instituted  (John  xiii.  21-30).  In  xiii.  27-29 
there  is  a  reference  to  the  purchase  of  things  which 
were  needful  for  the  feast.  This  is  said  to  indicate 
plainly  that  the  Supper  was  not  celebrated  on  the 
same  night  with  the  Passover.  Again,  in  xviii.  28, 
after  Jesus  had  been  arrested,  it  is  said  that  the 
Jews  would  not  go  into  the  palace  of  Pilate  lest  they 
should  be  defiled  so  that  they  could  not  eat  the  Pass- 


256  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

over.  This  is  said  to  show  that  Jesus  was  crucified 
on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and  hence  that  the  Last  Supper 
was  one  day  earlier  than  the  legal  Passover.  Finally, 
in  xix.  14,  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  is  called  the  Prep- 
aration of  the  Passover.  In  addition  to  these  difficul- 
ties from  John,  much  stress  is  laid  on  the  fact  that  the 
Synoptists  speak  of  various  things  as  being  done  on 
the  day  of  the  crucifixion,  which  would  not  be  done  on 
the  sacred  day  of  the  Passover.  Three  points  are  speci- 
fied :  ^  Joseph  buys  linen  on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion 
(Mark  xv.  46);  the  women  prepare  ointment  (Luke  xxiii. 
56) ;  and  Simon  comes  from  the  field,  as  though  from 
work  (Mark  xv.  21).  In  view  of  all  these  difficulties, 
some  writers  hold  that  there  is  an  irreconcilable  contra- 
diction between  John  and  the  Synoptists,^  one  regard- 
ing the  Synoptic  order  as  historical,  another  that  of 
John.  This  conclusion,  however,  has  not  a  little  against 
it.  First  of  all,  there  is  presumptive  evidence.  Thus  it 
is  to  be  presumed  that  Matthew  and  Peter  (the  latter 
being  Mark's  chief  source)  had  not  forgotten  the  day 
on  which  Jesus  ate  the  Last  Supper  with  His  disciples. 
The  events  of  the  last  twenty-four  hours  of  Jesus' 
life  must  have  remained  in  especially  vivid  remem- 
brance in  the  minds  of  the  disciples.  Second,  there  is 
a  presumption  that  if  John  had  known  that  the  Synop- 
tists were  mistaken  in  putting  the  crucifixion  on  the 
first  feast  day,  and  if  he  had  intended  to  correct  this 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  II.  494. 

2  E.g.,  Neander,  Hase,  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  and  Hort. 


THE  LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  257 

error,  he  would  have  done  so  in  an  unmistakable  man- 
ner. Third,  there  is  a  presumption  that  Jesus,  who 
was  made  under  the  law,  and  who  habitually  kept  the 
law,  would  not  celebrate  the  Passover  a  day  before  the 
legal  time.  Taken  together  this  presumptive  evidence 
is  exceedingly  strong. 

Let  us  look  now  at  the  passages  which  are  said  to 
prove  a  conflict  between  John  and  the  earlier  Gospels. 
According  to  John  xiii.  i,  the  culminating  proof  of 
Jesus'  love,  which  the  evangelist  saw  in  His  washing 
the  feet  of  His  disciples,  is  said  to  have  come  before  the 
Passover.  In  close  connection  with  this  incident  Jesus 
announced  the  treachery  of  one  of  His  disciples,  which 
according  to  the  Synoptists  came  on  the  same  evening 
with  the  Passover.  Two  points  are  here  to  be  noticed  : 
first,  that  John's  language  puts  only  the  symbolic  act 
of  washing  the  disciples'  feet  before  the  Passover;  it 
allows  us  to  think  that  the  supper  of  verses  21-30  was 
on  the  Passover  evening.  Second,  the  word  before  is 
indefinite,  and  might  quite  as  properly  have  been  used 
if  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  preceded  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Passover  by  an  hour,  as  it  could  have  been  if 
this  act  came  one  day  or  two  days  before  the  Passover. 
This  expression,  therefore,  does  not  at  all  suggest  that 
the  Passover  evening  has  not  yet  arrived.  Again,  it  is 
said  that  John  xiii.  27-29  implies  that  the  Passover  was 
not  until  the  following  day,  for  when  Judas  went  out 
some  of  the  disciples  thougJit  he  had  gone  to  buy  things 
for  the  feast.     But  are  we  quite  sure  that  he  could  not 


258  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

have  been  supposed  to  be  going  after  things  for  their 
use  on  that  very  evening  ?  Have  we  such  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  Passover  customs  of  that  time,  that 
we  are  warranted  in  denying  this  possibihty  ?  More- 
over, the  word  of  Jesus  to  Judas,  ''What  thou  doest, 
^o  quickly  y'  would  not  have  suggested  to  them  that  their 
Master  had  in  mind  certain  purchases  which  would  be 
needed  on  the  follozving  evening.  How  could  they 
have  thought  that  Jesus  would  send  one  of  their  num- 
ber out  in  haste  —  send  him  from  the  supper  table  —  to 
buy  things  which  they  could  procure  at  any  time  the 
next  day  ?  This  is  quite  as  incredible  as  the  view  that, 
if  it  had  been  the  evening  of  the  Passover,  no  one  could 
have  supposed  that  Jesus  had  sent  for  aught  for  the 
feast. 

Another  objection  is  found  in  John  xviii.  28.  Here 
it  is  said  that  the  Jews  entered  not  into  the  palace  of 
Pilate  on  the  morning  of  the  day  of  the  crucifixion,  lest 
they  should  be  defiled  so  that  they  could  not  eat  the 
Passover.  If  the  word  Passover  here  means  paschal 
lamb,  then  John  puts  the  crucifixion  the  day  before  the 
feast,  and  is  at  variance  with  the  Synoptists.  But  the 
expressions  Passover  and  eating  the  Passover  cannot  be 
limited  to  the  15th  of  Nisan  and  the  one  memorial 
meal  which  celebrated  Israel's  deliverance  out  of  Egypt. 
John  himself  uses  the  word  Passover  to  cover  the  entire 
feast  (ii.  23),  as  indeed  it  is  used  in  the  law  (Deut.  xvi. 
2) ;  and  accordingly  to  eat  the  Passover,  in  this  broader 
sense,  means  to  eat  the  various   sacrificial  and  festal 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  259 

meals  of  the  Passover  week,  especially  the  chagigaJi 
which  was  eaten  on  the  day  after  the  paschal  supper.^ 
Again,  the  defilement  of  entering  the  prsetorium  would 
have  continued  till  the  evening  only,  and  hence  would 
not  have  interfered  with  their  eating  the  paschal  lamb, 
for  this  was  eaten  in  the  night. 

There  remains  the  passage,  John  xix.  14.  The  day 
on  which  Jesus  was  crucified  is  called  the  Pirparatio7i 
of  the  Passover  (irapao-KevT]  rod  irdaxa).  Now  there  is 
ample  evidence  that  the  term  preparation  was  commonly 
used  to  designate  the  sixth  day  of  the  Jewish  week. 
Mark  says  it  denotes  the  day  before  the  Sabbath  ^ 
(xv.  42),  and  John  uses  the  word  twice  without  any 
modifier  to  designate  a  day  of  the  week  (xix.  31,  42). 
Hence  Preparation  of  the  Passover,  means  simply  Fri- 
day of  the  Passover  week,  and  has  no  reference  to  the 
Passover  supper. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  various  forms  of  work  or 
activity  which  the  Synoptists  put  on  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion,  we  cannot  affirm  that  they  may  not  all  have 
occurred  on  the  feast  day.  Travelling  was  allowed 
within  certain  limits,  and  hence  the  reference  to  Simon 
causes  no  difficulty  (Mark  xv.  21).  The  text  does  not 
say  that  he  was  coming  from  zvork,  but  only  that  he 
was  coming  from  the  country.     Joseph  bought  a  linen 

1  Wieseler,  Chronologische  Synopse,  pp.  381-385  ;  Friedlieb  Arch'do- 
logie  der  Leidensgeschichte,  p.  102  ;  Edersheim,  The  Life  and  Times  of 
Jesus  the  Messiah,  II.  568  ;   Zahn,  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  II.  525-527. 

2  Comp.  Judith  viii.  6,  where  Trpoad^^aTOu  is  used  in  the  same  way. 


260  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

cloth  to  wrap  the  body  of  Jesus  in,  and  the  women, 
according  to  Luke,  prepared  ointment,  but  no  law  has 
been  shown  to  have  existed  among  the  Jews  which  pro- 
hibited such  pious  rites  being  performed  on  the  feast  day 
(Mark  xv.  46 ;  Luke  xxiii.  56). 

In  view,  therefore,  of  these  arguments,  I  think  we 
must  hold  that  both  John  and  the  Synoptists  represent 
Jesus  as  having  kept  the  Passover  at  the  appointed  time. 
The  difficulties  of  this  position  seem  to  be  far  less  than 
those  which  are  encountered  when  we  put  the  Johannean 
observance  one  day  before  the  legal  time. 

Arrangements  for  the  Passover. 

Jesus  spent  Thursday,  at  least,  outside  the  city,  doubt- 
less with  His  friends  in  Bethany  (Mark  xiv.  12,  13). 
Sometime  during  this  day  His  disciples  asked  where 
He  would  keep  the  Passover,  that  they  might  make  the 
needful  preparations  (Mark  xiv.  12;  Matt.  xxvi.  17; 
Luke  xxii.  9).  They  did  not  know  that  He  had  already 
arranged  with  some  friend  for  a  room.  This,  however, 
appears  to  have  been  the  case. 

It  is  manifest  in  the  directions  given  to  Peter  and 
John,  who  were  sent  to  purchase  the  lamb  and  other 
necessary  articles  (Luke  xxii.  8).  He  tells  them  that 
they  will  meet  a  man  with  a  pitcher  of  water,  and  that 
he  will  lead  them  to  a  house  in  which  a  guest  chamber 
is  made  ready  for  Him  and  His  disciples  (Mark  xiv. 
13-15;  Matt.  xxvi.  18;  Luke  xxii.  10-12).  They  are 
simply  to  say  to  the  householder,  "  The  Teacher  saith, 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  26 1 

Where  is  my  guest  chamber  ?  "  It  is  taken  for  granted 
that  the  householder  knows  who  "  the  teacher  "  is,  and 
the  expression  '' viy  guest  chamber  "  also  points  to  a  pre- 
vious arrangement  for  a  room.  In  line  with  this  is  also 
the  statement  of  Jesus  that  the  disciples  would  find  the 
room  strewn  and  ready.  The  word  strewn  refers  to  the 
reclining  couches,  and  that,  together  with  the  word 
ready,  seems  to  imply  that  the  room  was  prepared  for 
thirteen  people. 

The  pecuUar  form  of  the  direction  given  to  the  dis- 
ciples was  probably  due  to  the  wish  of  Jesus  that  Judas 
should  not  know  beforehand  of  the  place.  For  it  was 
doubtless  plain  to  Jesus  that  this  disciple  was  alienated 
from  Him  and  liable  to  betray  Him  to  His  foes,  though 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  He  knew  of  the  con- 
tract which  Judas  had  already  made  with  the  leaders 
(Mark  xiv.  10,  11;  Matt.  xxvi.  14-16;  Luke  xxii.  3-6). 

We  may  suppose  that  Jesus  had  previously  arranged 
for  the  room,  partly,  perhaps,  that  there  might  be  no 
confusion  when  the  time  should  come  for  the  feast,  and 
partly  that  Judas  might  not  find  out  where  they  were 
to  keep  the  Passover,  and  so  be  able  to  arrest  Him 
before  He  had  kept  the  feast  with  His  disciples,  and 
had  said  His  parting  words  to  them. 

Washing  the  Disciples'  Feet, 

Jesus  and  the  twelve  came  into  the  city  toward  even- 
ing, and  went  to  the  place  which  had  been  prepared  for 
them  (Mark  xiv.   17;    Matt.  xxvi.  20;    Luke  xxii.   14). 


262  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

In  that  large  upper  room  Jesus  spent  His  last  quiet 
hours  with  the  disciples.  It  7nay  have  been  in  the 
home  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Mark.  If  the  young  man 
who  narrowly  escaped  arrest  with  Jesus  in  Gethsemane 
was  Mark  himself  (Mark  xiv.  51,  52),  which  seems  very 
probable,  then  it  is  further  probable  that  he  came  from 
the  house  where  Jesus  had  spent  the  evening,  and 
whither  the  soldiers  doubtless  went  at  first  in  the  hope 
of  finding  Jesus.  He  would  naturally  be  awakened  by 
the  coming  of  the  soldiers,  and  when  the  soldiers  hastily 
departed,  not  having  found  Jesus,  he  quickly  followed 
them  without  stopping  to  dress,  but  simply  throwing  a 
cloth  around  him.  If,  moreover,  the  Passover  was  cele- 
brated in  the  house  of  this  Mary,  then  it  is  not  improb- 
able that  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost 
was  in  the  same  room  (Acts  i.  13),  which  may  well  have 
seemed  to  the  disciples  a  most  holy  place,  and  a  place 
in  which  to  wait  for  the  fulfilment  of  Jesus'  promise. 
We  know  also  that  it  was  in  the  house  of  Mary  that 
many  gathered  to  pray  for  the  release  of  Peter  from 
prison,  and  this  may  well  have  been  in  the  same  upper 
room  (Acts  xii.  12). 

The  first  event  to  be  considered  which  certainly  took 
place  in  this  upper  room  was  the  washing  of  the  disci- 
ples' feet  (John  xiii.  1-20).  It  is  manifest  that  this  act 
of  Jesus  was  symbolical,  and  not  in  the  interest  of  clean- 
liness, or  to  fulfil  a  Pharisaic  ordinance,  for  He  did  not 
undertake  it  until  they  had  reclined  and  begun  their 
supper  (John  xiii.  2-4).     The  occasion  of  it  is  not  given, 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  263 

for  the  strife  as  to  who  was  greatest,  which  Luke 
records  in  connection  with  the  supper  (Luke  xxii. 
24-26),  is  probably  the  same  strife  which  we  know 
took  place  in  Capernaum  before  the  close  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  (Mark  ix.  33).  The  occasion  may  have 
been  some  feeling  of  jealousy  caused  by  the  positions 
occupied  at  the  table,  for  John  reclined  on  the  Lord's 
bosom  (John  xiii.  25),  and  Judas  seems  to  have  been 
next  to  Jesus  on  the  other  side  (John  xiii.  26-29;  Mark 
xiv.  20;  Matt.  xxvi.  23).  If  such  feelings  arose,  Jesus 
might  easily  notice  them,  and  this  may  have  led  to  the 
symbolic  act. 

As  the  service  itself  was  one  usually  performed  by 
slaves,  Jesus  attired  Himself  as  a  slave,  thus  making 
the  lesson  of  the  act  the  more  plain  and  impressive. 
This  lesson  was  that  of  service.  The  washing  of  the 
disciples'  feet  was  saying  in  the  language  of  action  that 
the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to 
minister,  and  that  the  law  of  His  Kingdom  was  the  law 
of  helpfulness  (Mark  x.  43-45).  In  the  mind  of  John, 
this  act  was  a  culminating  illustration  of  the  love  of 
Jesus  (John  xiii.  i),  and  it  is  doubtless  true  that  Jesus 
did  not  think  of  the  law  of  service  as  capable  of  fulfil- 
ment except  in  love  (John  xiii.  34,  35 ;  xiv.  23). 

It  was  thoroughly  characteristic  of  Peter  that  he  at 
first  refused  to  let  Jesus  wash  his  feet,  feeling  his  un- 
worthiness  of  such  a  service,  and  then  when  Jesus  made 
Peter's  fellowship  with  Him  depend  upon  his  accept- 
ance of  the  service  Avhich  was  offered,  he  craved  that 


264  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

his  hands  and  his  head  also  might  be  washed.  With 
his  whole  soul  he  desired  to  have  a  part  with  Christ. 
In  answering  Peter's  request,  Jesus  disclosed,  as  Weiss  ^ 
says,  the  deepest  meaning  of  the  act.  As  one  who  is 
bathed  needs  only  the  washing  of  the  feet,  when  they 
have  become  dusty  from  the  way,  so  the  disciples  have 
been  bathed  in  their  fellowship  with  Jesus,  and  need 
only  a  washing  from  the  pride  which  would  keep  them 
from  the  performance  of  the  humblest  service  for  each 
other.  Thus  there  was  a  thought  of  comfort  associated 
with  the  rebuke  which  was  involved  in  the  washing  of 
the  disciples'  feet  by  Jesus.  The  disciples  are  clean 
through  the  word  which  Jesus  has  spoken  to  them,  all 
but  one  (John  xv.  3). 

Departure  of  Judas. 

According  to  Luke,  Judas  remained  at  the  table 
through  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (Luke 
xxii.  21),  but  according  to  John,  he  went  out  straight- 
way after  he  had  received  a  sop  from  Jesus,  which  was 
given  him  while  they  were  recUning,  and  also  before  the 
closing  words  of  comfort  which  Jesus  spoke  to  His 
disciples  (John  xiii.  30).  In  Mark  and  Matthew,  the 
sop  was  given  to  Judas  before  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Therefore  if  he  went  out  immediately 
after  receiving  it,  as  John  says,  then  of  course  he  did 
not  partake  of  the  symbolical  bread  and  wine.  And  we 
may  say  that  this  course  of  events,  which  is  best  sup- 

1  Das  Leben  Jesu,  II.  507. 


THE  LAST  EIGHT   DAYS  265 

ported  by  the  text,  is  also  intrinsically  probable.  Jesus 
would  naturally  desire  that  Judas,  whose  heart  was  now 
hopelessly  alienated  from  Him,  should  not  by  his  pres- 
ence break  the  sympathetic  circle  to  which  He  was 
about  to  give  His  last  tender  words  of  farewell  and  of 

hope. 

The  occasion  of  the  departure  of  Judas  was  his  dis- 
covery that  Jesus  knew  his  treachery,  and  the  Lord's 
summons  to  do  quickly  what  he  purposed  (John  xiii. 
26,  27).  The  purpose  to  betray  Jesus  had  been  formed 
at  least  two  days  before  (Mark  xiv.  i,  10),  and  probably 
longer  than  that;  the  action  and  word  of  Jesus  only 
sent  him  forth  on  his  dark  mission  a  little  earher  than 
he  might  otherwise  have  gone.  Judas  may  well  have 
suspected  that  Jesus  was  doubtful  of  his  loyalty  before 
this  hour,  but  now  the  Lord  makes  it  plain  that  He 
knows  his  plot,  and  tells  him  to  carry  it  out  at  once. 
The  chief  object  which  Jesus  had  in  mind  when  He 
told  His  disciples  that  one  of  them  should  betray  Him, 
may  have  been  to  bring  about  the  departure  of  Judas, 
so  that  in  an  atmosphere  of  mutual  love  He  might 
speak  His  closing  words  (Mark  xiv.  18 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  21  ; 
Luke  xxii.  21). 

The  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Data. 

There  are  four  accounts  of  the  institution  of  the 
Supper,  the  earliest  being  by  Paul  (i  Cor.  xi.  23-26), 
the   other   three   being   by   the  Synoptists  (Mark  xiv. 


266  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

22-25;  Matt.  xxvi.  26-29;  Luke  xxii.  15-20).  John 
says  nothing  of  the  Supper,  but  the  fundamental  truth 
which  the  Supper  teaches  is  found  oftener  in  John's 
Gospel  than  in  either  of  the  others  (e.^.  John  vi). 

The  four  accounts  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper 
fall  into  two  groups,  those  of  Luke  and  Paul  forming 
one,  and  those  of  Matthew  and  Mark  the  other.  The 
differences  between  the  two  groups  and  also  between 
the  two  members  of  each  group  are  significant,  but  need 
not  here  be  examined  in  detail.  In  Paul  and  Luke  the 
memorial  character  of  the  Supper  is  expressly  stated, 
while  in  Mark  and  Matthew  it  does  not  appear.  Yet 
this  thought  is  surely  involved  in  the  observance  itself. 
The  broken  bread  and  the  wine  symbolizing  the  body 
and  the  blood  of  Jesus,  as  all  four  accounts  teach,  inevita- 
bly turn  the  thought  to  Him,  and  so  the  Supper  must  of 
necessity  be  a  memorial.  Mark  and  Matthew  say  that 
the  blood  is  shed  for  many,  Matthew  adding  to  this  the 
words  unto  remission  of  sins.  Both  these  thoughts  are 
wanting  in  the  narratives  of  Paul  and  Luke.  In  Paul 
and  Luke  the  Lord  is  represented  as  saying  to  His 
disciples  that  His  body  is  for  them.  In  Mark  and 
Matthew  the  horizon  is  broadened,  and  though  it  is  not 
said  for  whom  the  body  is  destined,  it  is  said  that  the 
blood  is  shed  for  many. 

Biographical  Significaitce. 

The  Lord's  Supper  is  biographically  important  be- 
cause, first,  it  is  the  clearest  expression  in  the  Synop- 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  267 

tists  of  the  significance  claimed  by  Jesus  for  His  own 
person.  The  bread  was  a  symbol  of  His  body,  and  the 
wine  a  symbol  of  His  blood.  The  broken  bread  pointed 
not  only  to  His  body,  but  also  to  His  body  given  for 
yon  (Luke  xxii.  19),  and  the  wine  symbolized  blood  that 
was  shed  for  many  (Mark  xiv.  24),  and  nnto  remission 
of  sins  (Matt.  xxvi.  28).  Thus  the  thought  of  Him, 
in  His  self-devotion  for  the  good  of  men,  was  to  be 
central  in  the  observance.  Second,  because  Jesus 
seems  to  have  regarded  the  Supper  as  in  some  sense 
parallel  with  the  old  Passover.  This  is  involved  in  the 
institution  of  the  Supper  immediately  after  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Passover.  Jesus  puts  it  side  by  side  with 
the  most  solemn  rite  of  the  Old  Covenant.  He  could 
hardly  have  done  this  had  He  not  considered  it  as  of 
equal  significance.  And  we  may  suppose  that  He 
regarded  its  fundamental  idea  as  similar  to  that  of  the 
Passover.  That  was  the  memorial  of  a  great  deliver- 
ance ;  so  also  was  the  Supper.  In  one  case  the  deliver- 
ance was  from  outward  bondage  and  by  outward  means  ; 
in  the  other  it  was  from  spiritual  bondage  and  by  spirit- 
ual means.  For  the  Supper  was  a  memorial  of  Jesus 
(Luke  xxii.  19),  but  the  one  great  work  of  Jesus  was 
a  work  of  deliverance  from  sin.  So  John  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse couples  Jesus  with  Moses,  and  calls  the  song  of 
redemption  by  their  joint  names,  because  the  work  of 
both  was  alike  a  work  of  deliverance  (Rev.  xv.  3).  The 
Lord's  Supper,  however,  differed  from  the  Passover  in 
that  while  it  was  a  feast  of  deliverance,  it  gave  promi- 


268  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

nence  to  the  Deliverer.  Deliverance  is  here  insepara- 
bly associated  with  Jesus.  The  Passover  gave  no  such 
prominence  to  the  person  of  the  deliverer.  It  was, 
rather,  a  memorial  of  the  deliverance  itself. 

T/iird,  the  Supper  is  biographically  important  because 
it  associates  brotherly  felloiuship  with  the  disciples'  re- 
membrance of  the  Lord.  It  is,  in  parable,  the  truth 
expressed  in  John  :  "  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that 
ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  toward 
another"  (John  xiii.  35).  By  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
disciples  were  to  make  known  the  death  of  Jesus 
(i  Cor.  xi.  26),  and  they  could  not  observe  that 
Supper  except  as  they  came  together  in  brotherly 
fellowship.  The  religious  memorial  of  Him  was  to 
be  a  social  feast,  where  the  one  loaf  was  to  be  divided 
among  all,  and  the  wine  cup  passed  from  one  to 
another.  Thus  it  involved  the  great  principle  of  the 
ethics  of  Jesus,  the  love  of  His  disciples  for  each 
other,  as  it  also  involves  the  love  of  God,  inasmuch 
as  it  presents  Jesus  in  the  act  of  giving  Himself  for 
men. 

Fourth,  the  Supper  is  biographically  important  be- 
cause it  contains  the  hope  of  Jesus  for  a  heavenly 
reunion  with  His  disciples.  Mark  and  Matthew  report 
that  Jesus,  before  leaving  the  table,  spoke  of  drinking 
wine  with  His  disciples  in  the  Kingdom  of  His  Father. 
Luke  has  a  similar  word,  but  connects  it  with  the 
observance  of  the  Passover  (Luke  xxii.  18).  In  this, 
however,  the  thought  of  reunion  is  wanting.     Jesus  sim- 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  269 

ply  says  that  He  will  not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine 
until  the  Kingdom  of  God  comes.  The  saying  of  Mark 
and  Matthew  suggests  the  end  of  an  earthly  fellowship, 
but  also  points  to  a  fellowship  in  the  future.  If  the 
Supper  looks  backward,  it  also  looks  forward.  Herein 
it  transcends  the  Passover,  which  was  wholly  concerned 
with  a  great  deliverance  in  the  past. 

The  Closing    Words  of  Jesus. 

The  Synoptists  bridge  the  interval  between  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Supper  and  Gethsemane  with  a  few  words 
in  which  Jesus  announces  that  His  disciples  will  leave 
Him,  that  later  He  will  go  before  them  into  GaKlee,  and 
with  the  short  dialogue  between  Jesus  and  Peter  (Mark 
xiv.  26-31;  Matt.  xxvi.  30-35;  Luke  xxii.  31-34).  In 
this  interval  John  puts  a  long  farewell  address  of  Jesus, 
and  a  prayer  by  Him  (John  xiii.  31-xvi.  33;  xvii).  In 
John  xiv.  30,  Jesus  says  that  He  will  not  speak  much 
more  with  His  disciples;  and  in  xiv.  31,  summons  them 
to  rise  and  go  forth.  Then,  without  suggestion  of 
change  of  place,  two  chapters  follow  just  as  though 
Jesus  had  not  spoken  the  words  of  xiv.  30,  31.  Again, 
it  is  not  until  xviii.  i  that  John  records  the  departure 
of  Jesus  and  His  disciples  across  the  brook  Kidron.  In 
view  of  these  facts,  it  seems  not  improbable  that  the 
original  order  of  the  material  has  been  interrupted.^ 
The    farewell  words   and   the  prayer  of  Jesus  belong 

1  Spitta,  Zur  Geschichte  und  Litteratur  des  Urckristefiihtwis,  I.  168- 
172. 


270  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

entirely  in  the  upper  chamber.  These  parting  words 
of  Jesus  are  to  be  considered  here  only  in  a  brief  man- 
ner, as  they  are  significant  for  the  record  of  His  life 
and  the  portrait  of  His  character.  The  so-called  high- 
priestly  prayer  of  Jesus,  though  it  may  not  give  His 
very  words,  is  doubtless  historical  in  this  respect,  that 
it  represents  Him  as  conscious  to  the  last  of  dependence 
upon  the  Father.  He  prayed.  He  prayed  for  Himself 
(John  xvii.  i,  5) ;  He  prayed  for  His  disciples  who 
were  with  Him  (John  xvii.  9-19);  He  prayed  for  those 
who  should  believe  on  Him  in  coming  time  (John  xvii. 
20,  21).  He  looked  to  the  Father  for  His  own  glorifi- 
cation, and  for  the  preservation,  sanctification,  union, 
success,  and  glory  of  His  disciples. 

Again,  these  closing  words  show  that  Jesus  had  what 
no  other  man  ever  had,  the  consciousness  of  having  per- 
fectly accomplished  the  work  which  the  Father  had 
given  Him  to  do  (John  xvii.  4);  and  this  work  which 
He  had  perfectly  accomplished  was  nothing  less  than 
manifesting  the  character  of  God  to  men  (John  xvii.  6), 
and  giving  to  His  disciples  a  new  and  eternal  life  (John 
xvii.  2). 

Again,  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples  appears 
in  a  clear  light  in  these  farewell  moments.  The  tender- 
ness and  generosity  of  His  love  for  them  are  manifest 
again  and  again.  He  wishes  them  to  share  not  only  in 
His  work,  but  to  share  equally  with  Him  in  the  Father's 
love,  and  to  share  in  His  own  glory  (John  xiv.  21,  23, 
27 ;  XV.  9  ;  xvii.  23,  24,  26).     He  sees  an  earthly  glorifi- 


THE    LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  27I 

cation  of  Himself  in  His  disciples  (John  xvii.  10).  They 
are  not  His  servants,  but  ¥Li^  friends  (John  xv.  15).  He 
has  taken  them  into  His  confidence  and  told  them  all 
that  He  knows  of  the  Father.  On  them  rests  the  same 
honor  that  rests  on  Him,  for  He  declares  that  they  are 
sent  into  the  world  even  as  He  had  been  sent  (John  xvii. 
18).  They  are  capable  of  becoming  one,  even  as  He 
and  the  Father  are  one  (John  xvii.  20-23).  They  are 
loved  of  the  Father,  even  as  He  Himself  is  (John  xvii. 
23),  and  His  future  aim  is  that  the  Father's  love  may 
be  in  them  (John  xvii.  26).  He  will  have  them  with 
Him  hereafter  (John  xiv.  3),  and  have  them  behold  His 
glory  (John  xvii.  24).  He  refers  to  the  Father's  house 
and  says  that  if  there  were  not  many  mansions  there 
He  would  have  told  them  (John  xiv.  2).  Thus  all  through 
these  closing  words  of  Jesus  runs  a  love  for  His  disci- 
ples that  is  full  of  divine  tenderness  and  magnanimity. 

But  here  also  more  clearly  than  elsewhere  appears 
the  thought  of  the  uriion  of  Jesus  with  His  disciples. 
He  is  one  with  them  in  their  common  knowledge  of  the 
Father,  a  knowledge  which  He  has  imparted  to  them 
(John  xvii.  ri,  22);  and  one  with  them  in  the  love  of 
the  Father,  which  He  has  revealed  to  them  (John  xv. 
3  ;  xvii.  26).  In  consequence  of  this  union.  His  disci- 
ples will  bear  fruit  (John  xv.  5),  will  be  united  with  each 
other  (John  xvii.  11,  20),  and  will  be  able  to  pray  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  (John  xv.  7;  xiv.  13,  14;  xv.  16;  xvi.  23, 
24,  26). 

In  connection  with  the  thought  of  Jesus'  union  with 


2/2  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

His  disciples,  which  was  so  prominent  in  the  words  of 
the  last  evening,  we  have  to  notice  what  He  says  of  His 
Successor,  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  the  Paraclete  (John  xiv.  i6,  17,  26;  xv.  26; 
xvi.  7-1 1,  13-15).  His  own  vital  relation  to  His 
disciples  was  to  be  continued  through  the  agency  of 
this  Successor.  When  the  Spirit  comes  to  the  disciples 
and  abides  in  them,  it  is  as  though  Jesus  Himself  abode 
in  them.  The  Spirit  is  His  alter  ego.  Thus  when 
looking  forward  to  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  He  says, 
**  /  will  come  to  you"  (John  xiv.  18),  and  when  mani- 
festly thinking  of  the  fellowship  of  the  Spirit,  He  says, 
*'  He  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and 
/  will  love  him  and  will  manifest  myself  \.o  him  "  (John 
xiv.  21).  The  Spirit  will  continue  to  do  for  the  disci- 
ples what  Jesus  has  done.  He  will  teach  them,  and  in 
this  will  sustain  the  same  relation  to  Jesus  that  Jesus 
in  His  teaching  has  sustained  to  the  Father  (John  xiv. 
26;  xvi,  13,  14;  xvii.  4).  He  does  not  speak  of  Him- 
self, but  speaks  what  He  hears.  His  work  is  most 
comprehensively  described  when  He  is  spoken  of  by 
the  side  of  Jesus  as  another  Paraclete  (John  xiv.  16). 
That  is,  Jesus  thought  the  mission  of  the  Spirit 
essentially  the  same  as  His  own.  He  had  been  a 
helper,  a  paraclete,  and  now  the  Spirit  will  take  His 
place  with  them,  and  be  their  helper  as  variously  as 
Jesus  Himself  had  ever  been,  though  not  necessarily  in 
the  same  ways.  This  language  of  course  implies  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit,  and  also  impUes  that  He  has 


THE  LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  2/3 

essentially  the  same  character  as  Jesus  — the  same  love 
for  the  disciples,  the  same  purpose,  the  same  under- 
standing of  their  needs,  and  the  same  abiUty  to  help  them. 
The  conviction  of  Jesus  that  His  Successor  would 
carry  on  His  work  even  better  than  He  could  do  if 
present  in  the  flesh  (John  xvi.  7),  may  account  in  some 
measure  for  the  serenity  of  His  mind  and  heart  in  view 
of  His  violent  separation  from  His  disciples,  and  in 
view  of  the  terrible  sorrow  and  disappointment  which 
would  for  a  time  be  theirs. 

Gethsemane. 

The  Place. 

Gethsemane  was  an  enclosed  garden  across  the 
Kidron  brook,  on  the  slope  of  Olivet  (John  xviii.  i). 
Jesus  had  often  been  there  with  His  disciples,  perhaps 
for  quiet  and  refreshment  (John  xviii.  2).  Therefore, 
Judas  knew  of  the  resort,  and,  after  going  to  the  house 
where  he  had  left  Jesus  and  failing  to  find  Him  there, 
he  bethought  him  of  this  place.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  he  knew  beforehand  that  Jesus  intended  to  go  to 
Gethsemane,  or  indeed  that  Jesus  Himself  had  planned 
it  previously. 

The  reason  why  Jesus  withdrew  to  Gethsemane  may 
have  been  twofold.  He  may  have  wished  a  secluded 
spot  for  prayer,  and  He  may  have  feared  that,  if  He 
remained  in  the  upper  chamber.  His  friends  might  be 
involved  in  trouble  when  Judas  and  the  Jews  came  to 
seize  Him. 


2/4  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

TJie  Prayer. 

Jesus  took  Peter,  James,  and  John  with  Him  to  a 
distance  from  the  others,  for  the  sake  of  having  human 
sympathy.  This  appears  from  the  narrative.  He 
wished  them  to  zvatch  with  Him  (Mark  xiv.  37;  Matt, 
xxvi.  40) ;  and  at  last,  when  the  struggle  was  ended. 
He  said  to  them,  "  It  is  enough  "  (Mark  xiv.  41),  that 
is  to  say,  He  had  no  longer  need  of  their  sympathy. 

Luke  speaks  of  one  prayer  only  (Luke  xxii.  39-46), 
Mark  of  two  (Mark  xiv.  35-42),  and  Matthew  of  three 
Matt.  xxvi.  39-46) ;  yet  Mark  implies  a  third  retirement 
of  Jesus,  and  so  virtually  a  third  prayer. 

Mark  and  Matthew  relate  that  as  Jesus  withdrew 
from  the  eight  disciples  with  the  three  chosen  ones.  He 
appeared  to  be  terrified  (iicOatxPeladai),  or  full  of  sorrow 
(Xvireladat),  and  distressed  {aBrj fiovetv)  (Mark  xiv.  33, 
34;  Matt.  xxvi.  37,  38).  He  said,  "My  soul  is  exceed- 
ing sorrowful,  even  to  the  point  of  death."  We  should 
doubtless  judge  of  His  state  by  this  word  rather  than 
by  what  the  disciples  say  of  His  appearance,  and  ac- 
cordingly His  anguish  was  that  of  extreme  sorrow, 
not  of  terror.  This  anguish  is  referred  to  later  under 
the  symbol  of  a  c?/p.  The  text  of  Luke  xxii.  43,  44, 
which  refers  to  the  strengthening  angel  and  to  the 
bloody  sweat,  is  probably  an  interpolation.^  It  is  char- 
acteristic of  Jesus  that  on  His  first  return  to  His  disci- 
ples, when  He  found  them  sleeping,  He  turned  from 

1  Not  found  in  Mss.  AB  Alepha,  etc.  See  Wescott  and  Hort,  T/ie  New 
Testament  in  Greek,  Appendix,  pp.  64-67. 


THE  LAST   EIGHr   DAYS 


275 


His  own  suffering  and  need  of  sympathy  to  speak  a 
helpful  word  to  them.  They  needed  to  watch  and  pray 
just  then,  when  weary  and  tired,  lest  they  should  sud- 
denly come  into  temptation  (Mark  xiv.  38;  Matt.  xxvi. 
41  ;  Luke  xxii.  46).  The  wisdom  of  His  words  was 
apparent  a  Uttle  later,  when  one  of  their  number  did  an 
act  of  violence  in  defence  of  Jesus  (Mark  xiv.  47),  and 
when  they  all  left  their  Master  alone  and  fled  (Mark 
xiv.  50). 

Mark  first  reports  a  prayer  of  Jesus  in  the  third  per- 
son (xiv.  35).  Jesus  prayed  that,  if  it  was  possible,  the 
hour  might  pass  from  Him.  Then  follows  a  prayer  in 
the  words  of  Jesus  :  "Abba,  Father,  all  things  are  pos- 
sible to  Thee ;  cause  this  cup  to  pass  from  me ;  never- 
theless not  what  I  will,  but  what  Thou  wilt "  (xiv.  36). 

The  narrative  contains  no  suggestion  as  to  the  object 
of  the  prayer  of  Jesus,  unless  it  be  in  the  words  Jioiir 
and  cup.  Of  these,  Jesus  used  the  former,  according 
to  John,  in  a  prayer  offered  earlier  in  the  last  week. 
Then,  when  plainly  contemplating  His  death.  He  said : 
"Now  is  my  soul  troubled ;  and  what  shall  I  say } 
Father,  save  me  from  this  hour  }  But  for  this  cause 
came  I  unto  this  hour.  Father,  glorify  Thy  name " 
(John  xii.  27,  28).  A  httle  earher  still,  in  a  significant 
passage,  Jesus  used  the  other  word,  cup,  when  He  said 
to  James  and  John,  "  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  which  I 
drink.?  "  (Mark  x.  38).  It  is  there  parallel  to  the  word 
baptism,  which  Jesus  employed  on  another  occasion 
also,  when  apparently  referring  to  His  death  (Luke  xii. 


2/6  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

50).  The  author  of  Hebrews,  referring  to  the  hour  in 
Gethsemane,  says  that  Jesus  offered  prayers  and  suppH- 
cations  to  Him  who  was  able  to  save  Him  from  death 
(Heb.  V.  7).  Accordingly,  in  keeping  with  all  these 
suggestions  regarding  the  object  of  Jesus'  prayer,  we 
may  take  the  cup  as  a  symbol  of  His  approaching 
suffering  and  death.  When  Jesus  prayed  that  the  cup 
might  pass  away  from  Him,  we  must  suppose  that  for 
the  moment  at  least  it  seemed  to  Him  possible  that  His 
Father,  who  had  all  power,  could  grant  the  petition, 
and  lead  Him  to  the  goal  of  His  Messianic  labor  by 
some  other  way  than  that  of  the  cross.  This  prayer  is 
in  contrast  with  the  certainty  and  serenity  of  words 
which  Jesus  had  spoken  about  His  death  during  the 
past  six  months.  Again  and  again  He  had  taught  His 
disciples  that  He  was  to  be  put  to  death.  In  the  upper 
chamber.  He  had  spoken  calmly  of  His  death,  and  had 
given  His  disciples  a  memorial  of  it  in  the  bread  and 
wine.  He  had  had  the  assurance  in  His  soul  that  the 
hour  of  His  death  was  to  be  the  hour  of  His  glorifica- 
tion. He  bade  His  disciples  to  be  of  good  cheer 
because  He  had  overcome  the  world.  But  while  the 
hour  in  Gethsemane  presents  a  sharp  contrast  to  previous 
hours  in  which  Jesus  had  spoken  of  His  death,  this  con- 
trast is  by  no  means  inexplicable.  Jesus  had  come  now 
to  the  last  hour.  The  sufferings  which  He  had  contem- 
plated at  a  greater  or  less  remove  from  Him  were  now 
at  hand.  His  enemies  were  coming  nearer  and  nearer 
through  the  darkness.     If    He  had  a  sensitive  human 


THE  LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  277 

spirit,  if  He  had  not  steeled  His  heart  to  stoic  indiffer- 
ence toward  sorrow  and  suffering,  then  we  cannot  well 
imagine  how  these  last  dark  hours  of  suspense  could 
end  without  His  meeting  at  least  one  overwhelming 
wave  of  distress  and  anguish.  This  would  have  been 
natural  had  He  faced  the  ordinary  fate  of  criminals  in 
His  day,  and  had  He  faced  it  sustained  by  the  sympathy 
of  one  or  more  friends ;  but  He  was  entering  a  day  of 
agony  unparalleled  in  history ;  and  He  was  entering  it 
alone.  No  being  ever  faced  such  a  day,  for  no  being 
ever  loved  as  Jesus  loved  the  people  who  were  about  to 
crucify  Him ;  no  one  had  ever  offered  to  men  what  He 
had  offered,  only  to  be  rejected ;  and  no  one  had  ever 
had  such  a  knowledge  and  abhorrence  of  sin,  or  had 
seen  how  it  pains  and  dishonors  the  Father ;  and  it  was 
sin  in  its  extremest  manifestation  that  He  was  about  to 
meet  and  before  which  He  was  to  fall  and  die.  And 
He  was  treading  the  wine  press  alone.  His  nearest 
disciples  slept  while  He  prayed.  No  one  in  the  Church 
of  God  sympathized  with  His  conception  of  the  Mes- 
siah. The  very  people  to  whom  God  had  most  clearly 
revealed  His  will  were  about  to  cast  Jesus  out  as  a 
dangerous  fanatic.  The  truth  which  He  had  seen  He 
must  still  cherish  alone ;  not  one  human  being  to  look 
with  approval  upon  His  course. 

But  the  hour  in  Gethsemane,  while  presenting  con- 
trasts to  previous  hours  in  which  Jesus  had  contemplated 
His  death,  was  yet  in  fundamental  points  in  deep  accord 
with  the  principles  of  His  life.     He  had  anguish  of  soul; 


2/8  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

He  took  it  to  God.  He  shrank  from  the  horror  of 
blackness  before  Him ;  but  He  remained  true  to  the 
Divine  Will.  His  soul  was  sorrowful  unto  death;  but 
He  found  in  God  a  calm  that  death  itself  was  pov/erless 
to  disturb. 

The  Day  of  the  Crucifixion.^ 

The  Arrest, 

The  force  sent  to  arrest  Jesus  was  large.  There  was 
not  only  a  company  from  the  chief  priests,  but  also  a 
Roman  cohort,^  the  particular  one  which  was  stationed 
in  the  tower  of  Antonia  near  the  temple,  or  part  of  it 
in  Antonia  and  part  in  the  palace  (Mark  xiv.  43  ;  Matt. 
xxvi.  47 ;  Luke  xxii.  47 ;  John  xviii.  3).  This,  if  full, 
numbered  from  three  to  six  hundred  men.^  Yet  the 
large  force  was  no  larger  than  the  circumstances  seemed 
to  require.  The  priests  had  feared  to  make  an  attempt 
to  arrest  Jesus  during  the  feast,  lest  there  should  be  a 
tumult  of  the  people  (Mark  xiv.  2).  There  were  many 
among  the  pilgrims  at  the  feast,  and  some  of  the  people 
of  Jerusalem,  who  had  at  least  a  superficial  enthusiasm 
for  Jesus,  and  if  He  should  put  Himself  at  their  head, 
as  their  Messiah,  their  force  would  be  most  dangerous. 

The  Synoptists  all  agree  that  Judas  kissed  Jesus,  and 

1  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  hour  in  Gethsemane  was  after  midnigh!;, 
and  so  belonged  to  the  day  of  the  crucitixion,  as  we  reckon  time  ;  but  it  is 
convenient  to  begin  the  day  with  the  first  of  the  proceedings  against  Jesus. 

2  Beyschlag  thinks  that  the  cohort  (cnreTpa)  was  simply  the  Jewish  tem- 
ple watch,  but  gives  no  proof  that  this  military  term  was  ever  thus  used. 

3  Marquardt,  Romische  Staaisverwaltung,  II.  437. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  2/9 

Mark  says  that  he  kissed  Him  ejfiisively  (Mark  xiv. 
44,  45  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  48-50 ;  Luke  xxii.  47,  48).  The 
first  two  evangeUsts  infer  that  this  kiss  was  a  sign 
agreed  upon  between  Judas  and  the  soldiers,  which 
seems  to  be  supposed  by  Luke's  narrative  (Luke  xxii. 
48),  for  Jesus  is  there  represented  as  saying,  ''  Betray  est 
thou  the  Son  of  man  with  a  kiss  t " 

Judas  may  have  chosen  this  sign  as  the  one  Ukely  to 
cause  the  least  disturbance.  It  indicates  that  he  did 
not  expect  any  resistance  either  on  the  part  of  Jesus  or 
of  His  disciples. 

The  incident  related  by  John  (xviii.  4-9),  that  when 
Jesus  confronted  the  arresting  force  with  the  question, 
'*  Whom  seek  ye  ?  "  they  went  backward  and  fell  to  the 
ground,  is  intrinsically  credible.  All  the  circumstances 
conspired  to  overawe  superstitious  men.  First,  it  was 
in  the  dead  of  night,  when  men  are  especially  susceptible 
to  fear.  Then,  Jesus  was  known  as  possessed  of  won- 
derful power.  He  who  could  raise  the  dead,  as  Jesus 
had  recently  done  near  Jerusalem,  might  He  not  also  be 
able  to  smite  with  death  }  So  may  the  superstitious  men 
have  reasoned  who  came  to  arrest  Jesus.  Then  w^hen 
Jesus  came  forward  and  asked  whom  they  sought,  and 
said  that  He  was  Jesus,  there  may  well  have  been  in 
His  appearance  a  kingly  boldness  which  struck  terror 
into  the  hearts  both  of  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles. 

After  Jesus  had  told  them  a  second  time  that  He 
was  the  one  whom  they  sought,  and  asked  that  His 
disciples  might  be  allowed  to  go  their  way,  the  soldiers 


28o  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

may  have  recovered  themselves,  and  have  seen  that  He 
would  offer  no  resistance  (John  xviii.  8). 

At  this  point,  as  the  servants  of  the  priests  drew  near 
to  Jesus,  Peter  drew  his  sword  and  delivered  a  blow  at 
the  head  of  a  man  by  the  name  of  Malchus,  cutting  off 
his  right  ear  (Mark  xiv.  47 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  51  ;  Luke  xxii. 
50;  John  xviii.  10).  Jesus  charged  him  to  put  up  his 
sword,  intimating  that  what  He  was  about  to  suffer  was 
in  accordance  with  the  will  of  His  Father  (John  xviii. 
11).  Otherwise  He  might  summon  to  His  help  more 
than  twelve  legions  of  angels  (Matt.  xxvi.  53).  He  has 
ample  sources  of  deliverance,  but  deliverance  is  not 
God's  thought  for  Him.  Only  Luke,  who  was  not  an 
eye-witness,  records  the  heaUng  of  Malchus  (Luke 
xxii.  51). 

Mark  and  Matthew  expressly  say  that  all  the  disciples 
at  last  fled  from  Jesus,  and  the  same  is  implied  in  Luke 
and  John  (Mark  xiv.  50  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  56).  The  disciples 
may  have  been  the  more  ready  to  flee  because  of  the 
word  which  Jesus  had  just  spoken  in  their  hearing, 
"Let  these  go  their  way"  (John  xviii.  8);  and  also  be- 
cause He  had  prohibited  their  doing  anything  in  His 
defence.  It  would  be  very  hard  to  remain  passive  when 
their  Lord  was  being  bound  and  led  away  by  His  foes. 
Two  of  the  disciples  did  not  flee  far,  and  after  a  little 
turned  and  followed  the  band  who  were  leading  Jesus 
away  (John  xviii.  15;  Mark  xiv.  54;  Matt.  xxvi.  58; 
Luke  xxii.  54). 


THE  LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  28 1 

Before  Annas. 

The  fact  that  Annas  was  an  ex-high  priest,^  of  great 
influence  and  wealth,  also  father-in-law  of  Joseph  Caia- 
phas,2  together  with  the  probable  fact  that  the  Sanhedrin 
could  not  be  at  once  assembled,  may  explain  why  Jesus 
was  taken  directly  to  his  palace  (John  xviii.  13). 

The  Synoptists  say  nothing  of  this  appearance  before 
Annas.  Jesus  is  brought  at  once  before  the  Sanhedrin 
(Mark  xiv.  53).  John,  on  the  other  hand,  says  noth- 
ing of  the  trial  of  Jesus  by  Caiaphas  and  the  Sanhedrin, 
unless  we  suppose  the  passage  John  xviii.  19-23  to 
refer  to  such  a  trial.  But  it  is  difficult  to  refer  this 
passage  to  Caiaphas  because  at  its  close  we  read,  in 
vs.  24,  "Annas  therefore  sent  Him  bound  unto  Caia- 
phas the  high  priest."  It  does  not  help  the  case  to 
render  the  verb  as  a  pluperfect,  and  say,  "  Annas  there- 
fore had  sent  Him  bound  to  Caiaphas  the  high  priest." 
This  makes  the  logical  particle  tJierefore  {ovv)  unintel- 
ligible. But  it  is  perfectly  clear  if  the  preceding 
verses  refer  to  Annas.  If,  however,  John  meant  his 
readers  to  understand  that  the  high  priest  of  vs.  19 
was  Caiaphas,  we  must  say  that  he  was  very  success- 
ful in  veiling  his  thought. 

We  gain  nothing  by  connecting  vs.  19  with  vs.  14,^ 
for  if  Caiaphas  was  the  man  before  whom  Jesus  stood 

1  Joseph  us,  Antiquities,  xviii.  2.  i,  2  ;  xx.  9.  i.  Annas  was  high  priest 
from  6-15  A.D. 

2  High  priest,  according  to  Schiirer,  from  18-36  A.D. 

3  Spitta,  Zur  Geschichte  und  Litter atur  des  Urchristenthums,  p.  158  f. 


282  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

in  verses  19-23,  how  then  at  the  close  of  this  hearing 
could  Annas  send  Jesus  to  Caiaphas?  Had  Caiaphas 
been  in  the  house  of  Annas  during  this  first  hearing,  if 
we  may  call  it  such,  and  if  Caiaphas  had  then  gone  to 
his  own  palace  to  meet  the  Sanhedrin,  we  should  expect 
that  his  officers,  the  officers  who  had  arrested  Jesus, 
would  conduct  Him  to  the  place  of  trial.  There  would 
be  no  occasion  whatever  for  Annas  to  send  his  servants. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  Jesus  was  not  only  led  to 
the  house  of  Annas  but  also  that  the  dialogue  of  verses 
19-23  was  between  Jesus  and  Annas.  He  is  called 
high  priest,  for  this  title  was  retained  by  any  one  who 
had  once  held  the  office  and  was  given  even  to  mem- 
bers of  the  famines  of  the  high  priests  who  had  not  held 
the  office ;  ^  hence  the  New  Testament  often  speaks  of 
several  men  who  bear  the  title  contemporaneously  {e.g. 
Matt.  ii.  4;  xxi.  23,  etc.). 

The  reason  why  John  makes  no  reference  to  the  trial 
of  Jesus  by  the  Sanhedrin  may  be  that  this  had  been  so 
fully  related  by  the  Synoptists ;  more  probably  because 
he  did  not  regard  it  as  adapted  to  further  the  specific 
purpose  which  he  had  in  mind  (John  xx.  31).  He  says 
that  Jesus  was  sent  to  Caiaphas,  remarking  that  this 
was  the  man  who  had  counselled  the  Jews  to  put  Him 
to  death  (John  xviii.  14,  24),  and  then  he  passes  to  the 
palace  of  Pilate  (xviii.  28).  His  narrative  of  course 
implies  that  the  Sanhedrin  condemned  Jesus  to  death. 

The  fact  that  Annas  asked  Jesus  about  His  disciples 

1  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  ji'idischen  Volkes,  II.  171-174. 


THE  LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  283 

and  His  teaching  —  assuming  the  honesty  of  the  ques- 
tions —  shows  that  it  was  possible  to  live  in  Jerusalem 
during  the  ministry  of  Jesus  and  yet  be  practically 
ignorant  of  its  character  and  results.  Jesus  did  not 
answer  the  questions  of  Annas,  but  referred  him  to 
the  multitudes  who  in  synagogue  and  in  temple  had 
heard  His  words.  This  reply  seemed  to  one  of  the 
officers  who  stood  by  disrespectful,  and  he  struck  Jesus 
a  blow  with  his  hand.  This  was  the  first  of  the  long 
line  of  physical  indignities  and  sufferings  to  which 
Jesus  was  subjected  during  His  trial. 

The  Synoptists  tell  us  that  Simon  Peter  followed 
Jesus  and  entered  into  the  court  of  the  high  priest 
{e.g.  Mark  xiv.  54);  John  says  that  the  unnamed  dis- 
ciple was  also  present,  and  indeed  that  it  was  only 
through  his  agency  that  Peter  gained  admittance  to 
the  palace  (John  xviii.   15). 

Peter's  Denial. 

The  four  narratives  of  Peter's  denial  agree  in  their 
main  statements,  but  differ  in  numerous  details.  Thus 
they  differ  as  to  the  persons  who  occasion  the  different 
denials,  also  in  regard  to  the  words  they  speak,  and  in 
regard  to  the  replies  of  Peter,  and,  most  important  of 
all,  they  differ  as  to  the  place  where  the  denial  occurred. 
While  there  are  no  two  reports  which  do  not  present 
numerous  points  of  difference,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that 
the  four  accounts  fall  into  two  groups,  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew forming  one,  and  Luke  and  John  the  other.     As 


284  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Peter  and  John  were  the  only  disciples  present  at  the 
trial  of  Jesus,  we  must  trace  all  the  narratives  back  to 
their  versions  of  what  occurred. 

The  two  groups  —  Mark  and  Matthew  forming  one, 
Luke  and  John  the  other  —  differ  from  each  other  more 
noticeably  than  do  the  members  of  either  group.  One 
important  difference  is  that  Peter  appears  in  a  some- 
what more  favorable  light  in  the  second  group  than  in 
the  first.  In  the  second  it  is  not  said  that  he  swore  or 
cursed.  He  simply  denied  that  he  was  a  disciple,  and 
denied  that  he  knew  Jesus,  and  denied  that  he  was  in 
the  garden.  But  the  most  noticeable  difference  between 
the  two  groups,  and  one  which  cannot  yet  be  explained 
in  a  wholly  satisfactory  manner,  is  that  of  place. 
According  to  Mark  and  Matthew,  Peter's  denial  is  to 
be  associated  with  the  trial  of  Jesus  by  the  Sanhedrin. 
They  show  us  Peter  sitting  by  the  fire  with  the  officers, 
before  they  proceed  to  the  trial  (Mark  xiv.  54 ;  Matt. 
XX vi.  58).  They  narrate  the  three  denials  after  the 
narrative  of  the  trial,  but  they  may  have  done  this  even 
if  the  denials  had  taken  place  while  the  trial  was 
going  on. 

Luke  says  nothing  of  an  assembly  of  the  Sanhedrin 
until  morning  (Luke  xxii.  66),  and  narrates  Peter's 
denial  as  having  occurred  before  this,  in  the  house  of 
the  high  priest  (Luke  xxii.  54). 

John  narrates  the  incident  in  two  sections,  and  be- 
tween these  he  puts  the  transfer  of  Jesus  in  bonds  from 
Annas  to  Caiaphas   (John   xviii.    15-18,  25-27).      But 


THE  LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  285 

though  he  presents  the  mcident  in  two  sections,  it  is 
plain  that  he  did  not  think  of  it  as  transpiring  in  two 
places,  for  all  the  time  Peter  is  standing  by  one  and  the 
same  fire  of  coals  (John  xviii.  18,  25).  Of  these  two 
representations,  that  of  John  and  Luke  is  probably  to 
be  preferred.  For,  in  the  first  place,  John's  account  of 
the  entire  last  day  of  Jesus'  life  shows  a  more  accurate 
acquaintance  with  the  events  than  does  the  Synoptic 
narrative.  Moreover,  there  are  two  points  in  connec- 
tion with  the  narrative  of  Peter's  denial  which  favor  the 
view  that  it  was  in  the  house  of  Annas.  First,  the 
representation  that  Peter  and  the  officers  were  sitting 
by  the  fire  in  the  court  suits  the  period  of  waiting  in 
the  house  of  Annas  better  than  it  does  the  time  of  trial 
by  the  Sanhedrin.  At  the  latter  time,  the  disciples,  if 
not  the  officers,  must  have  been  intent  on  the  course  of 
the  trial  of  Jesus.  And,  further,  the  statement  in  Luke 
that  Jesus  looked  upon  Peter  (Luke  xxii.  61)  can  be 
more  readily  understood  if  they  were  in  the  house  of 
Annas,  where  relatively  few  were  gathered  and  where 
there  was  no  formal  trial,  than  it  can  if  Jesus  was  in  the 
midst  of  the  high  court  of  the  Sanhedrin  on  trial  for 
His  life.  It  has  been  suggested  that  Jesus  looked  upon 
Peter  just  as  He  was  being  sent  from  Annas  to 
Caiaphas.^ 

The  narratives  of    Peter's   denial,  while  presenting 

1  The  hypothesis  that  Annas  and  Caiaphas  occupied  the  same  house  is 
not  favored  by  John's  statement  that  Annas  sent  Jesus  to  Caiaphas,  nor  does 
it  remove  the  difficulty  in  locating  the  scene  of  Peter's  denial. 


286  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

these  differences,  are  in  essential  agreement.  They 
all  say  that  Peter  was  three  times  charged  with  being  a 
disciple  of  Jesus,  that  he  three  times  denied  the  charge, 
and  that  about  the  time  of  the  third  denial  the  cock 
crew,  reminding  Peter  of  Jesus'  prediction  regarding 
him.  All  but  John  record  how  the  true  Peter  was 
awakened  by  the  crowing  of  the  cock  and  went  out  of 
the  house  to  weep.  From  Annas  Jesus  was  sent  bound 
to  Caiaphas  (John  xviii.  24),  to  be  tried  by  the  Sanhe- 
drin  over  which  Caiaphas  as  acting  high  priest  presided. 

Tried  by  the  Sajihedrin. 

The  regular  place  of  meeting  for  the  Sanhedrin  is 
thought  to  have  been  on  the  temple  mount,  but  that 
may  not  have  been  available  for  the  trial  of  Jesus,  since 
the  gates  of  the  temple  were  closed  at  night. ^  So  the 
trial  of  Jesus  took  place  in  the  high  priest's  house.  At 
what  hour  it  began  we  cannot  definitely  say,  neither  can 
we  determine  how  long  it  continued.  This,  however, 
is  plain,  that  it  was  all  over  and  Jesus  was  led  away  to 
Pilate  while  it  was  still  early  morning  (Mark  xv.  i  ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  i  ;  John  xviii.  28).^  From  the  narrative  of 
Mark  we  infer  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Sanhedrin 
and  the  subsequent  ill-treatment  of  Jesus  occupied  con- 
siderable  time,   possibly  two   or   three   hours.      Many 

m 

1  Schlirer,  II.  210-213, 

2  Luke  puts  the  trial  in  the  morning,  identifying  it  apparently  with  the 
early  gathering  of  the  Sanhedrin  to  consult  on  the  course  to  be  pursued 
before  Pilate,  and  to  take  Jesus  to  Pilate's  palace  (Luke  xxii.  66  ;  Mark 
XV.  I  ;   Matt,  xxvii.  i,  2, 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  287 

false  witnesses  were  heard  and  their  testimony  dis- 
cussed;  there  was  the  dialogue  between  Jesus  and 
Caiaphas;  then  the  formal  voting  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
and  after  that  the  varied  abuse  of  Jesus.  There  was 
probably  all  possible  haste,  for  the  leaders  were  ap- 
prehensive of  a  tumult  in  favor  of  Jesus,  and  yet  the 
period  allowed  for  these  events  must  not  be  tco  much 
compressed. 

Of  the  seventy-one  ^  members  composing  the  Sanhe- 
drin, the  evangelists  imply  that  at  least  the  greater  part 
were  present  at  the  trial  of  Jesus.  The  trial  of  a  false 
prophet  required,  according  to  law,  the  full  Sanhe- 
drin,2  but  the  trial  of  Jesus  was  not  wholly  according  to 
the  Jewish  law,  as  that  is  known  to  us,  and  we  need  not 
think  that  every  member  was  present. 

In  the  trial  of  Jesus,  as  reported  by  the  evangehsts, 
three  points  are  made  prominent.  First,  the  plan  to 
condemn  Jesus  on  the  evidence  of  witnesses  against 
Him  failed.  Many  witnesses  appeared,  but  their  testi- 
mony was  not  accepted  even  by  a  jury  who  had  long 
purposed  to  kill  the  prisoner.  The  only  charge  against 
Jesus,  which  is  specified  in  our  narrative,  is  that  He  had 
spoken  slightingly  of  the  temple ;  but  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  did  not  agree. 

Then,  in  the  second  place,  having  failed  to  secure 
testimony  against  Jesus,  the  high  priest  demanded  that 

1  Or  seventy-one,  exclusive  of  the  presiding  officer  and  secretaries. 
Weber,  p.  140. 

2  So  Weber,  p.  140.     Authorities,  however,  differ  on  this  point. 


288  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

He  should  tell,  under  oath,  whether  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah. To  this  question  Jesus  answered  affirmatively. 
According  to  the  Synoptists,  He  had  not  hitherto  made 
a  verbal  claim  to  Messiahship  in  public.  The  reason 
for  the  solemn  and  explicit  claim  on  the  present 
occasion  may  have  been  the  desire  that  the  leaders 
should  act  with  the  fullest  possible  knowledge  of  what 
they  were  doing.  And  the  third  memorable  feature  of 
the  trial  was  the  declaration  which  Jesus  made  about 
a  glorious  vindication  that  His  words  and  cause  should 
have  in  the  future.  In  strongest  contrast  with  His 
present  position  as  a  prisoner,  waiting  the  sentence  of 
the  Sanhedrin,  He  places  a  future  scene  where  the 
prisoner  of  the  present  will  be  seated  on  the  clouds  as 
Supreme  Judge.  This  word  of  Jesus,  an  echo  of  Daniel 
vii.  13,  may  be  regarded  as  a  further  warning  to  the 
Sanhedrin  against  the  course  they  were  pursuing,  and 
as  a  further  affirmation  by  Jesus  of  His  Messiahship. 
This  claim  of  Jesus,  doubtless  not  anticipated  by 
Caiaphas,  at  least  in  such  explicit  terms,  was  most 
acceptable  to  him  and  the  court.  They  did  not  longer 
need  to  search  for  witnesses.  Rending  his  garments 
in  testimony  of  his  abhorrence  of  the  blasphemy,  he 
called  for  the  judgment  of  the  Sanhedrin;  and  all  con- 
demned Jesus  to  be  worthy  of  death  ^  (Mark  xiv.  64). 
The  sentence  of  death  once  passed,  Jesus  was  shame- 
fully treated,  first  by  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  itself, 

1  If   Joseph  and  Nicodemus  were  present  (John  iii.  i ;  xix.  38) ,  they 
were  of  course  utterly  powerless. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  289 

who  spat  upon  Him  and  mocked  Him,  and   then  by  the 
officers  to  whom  He  was  deUvered  (Mark  xiv.  65). 

First  Appearance  before  Pilate. 

The  Sanhedrin  could  pass  a  sentence  of  death,  but 
could  not  proceed  to  its  execution  without  the  consent 
of  the  Roman  government  (John  xviii.  31).  Therefore, 
the  next  step  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  was  to  secure 
from  Pontius  Pilate,  the  Roman  procurator,  the  execu- 
tion of  their  will.  To  this  end  the  members  of  the  San- 
hedrin went  in  a  body  to  Pilate,  having  taken  counsel 
together  as  to  the  method  of  procedure  (Mark  xv.  i ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  i  ;  Luke  xxiii.  i).  They  took  Jesus  with 
them  bound. 

The  prsetorium  of  Pilate  is  identified  by  some 
scholars^  with  the  palace  of  Herod,  on  the  west  side 
of  the  city,  and  by  others  with  the  fortress  Antonia,  at 
the  northwest  corner  of  the  temple  area.^  According 
to  Josephus,^  the  Roman  procurator  Florus  (64-66  a.d.) 
resided  in  Herod's  palace,  but  this  fact  is  hardly  proof 
that  Pilate  also  resided  there,  thirty  years  before  the 
time  of  Florus.  However,  since  Antonia  was  a  military 
barrack  rather  than  a  residence,  and  since  Pilate's  wife 
was  in  Jerusalem  with  him  (Matt,  xxvii.  19),  it  is  proba- 
ble that  he  abode  in  this  palace.^ 

1  Schiirer,  I.  382  ;   Edersheim,  H.  566. 

2  Wieseler,  pp.  407,  408  ;   Badeker,  p.  81. 
^Jewish  War,  IL  14.  8  ;    15.  5. 

*  Mark  xv.  16  speaks  as  though  the  soldiers  of  the  cohort  took  part  in 
U 


290  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

At  His  first  appearance  before  Pilate,  the  charge 
against  Jesus  seems  to  have  been  wholly  political.  All 
the  evangelists  represent  Pilate  as  asking  Him  if  He 
was  King  of  the  Jews,  which,  of  course,  implies  that 
His  enemies  had  preferred  against  Him  this  charge. 
But  in  John  this  was  not  the  first  step.  When  Pilate 
asks  what  accusation  the  Jews  bring,  they  reply  that 
they  should  not  have  delivered  Jesus  up  if  He  had  not 
been  an  evil-doer  (John  xviii.  29,  30).  They  evidently 
wish  to  have  Pilate  take  their  judgment  of  the  case 
without  particular  specifications.  And  the  reason  of 
this  may  well  have  been  the  fact  that  the  ground  on 
which  they  had  condemned  Jesus  to  death,  namely,  the 
ground  of  blasphemy,  would  not  avail,  as  they  knew, 
with  Pilate.  His  reply  that  they  should  take  Jesus  and 
judge  Him  themselves,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  if 
they  wish  any  action  on  his  part,  they  must  bring  for- 
ward some  definite  accusation. 

Balked  in  this  plan,  the  Jews  charged  that  Jesus 
claimed  to  be  a  king,  and  that  He  accordingly  refused 
tribute  to  Caesar,  and  stirred  up  the  people  (Luke 
xxiii.  2).  There  was  a  grain  of  truth  in  this  charge, 
as  the  Jews  looked  at  it.  Jesus  had  declared  before 
the  Sanhedrin  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  which  was 
the  same  as  claiming  to  be  the  king  foretold  in  the 
prophets.  But  the  charge  against  Jesus,  as  Pilate  would 
understand  it,  was  false,  and  the  Jews  knew  that  it  was. 

the  scourging  of  Jesus,  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that  Pilate  would  have  part 
of  the  cohort  in  his  immediate  vicinity,  while  part  would  be  in  Antonia. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  29 1 

Jesus  had  steadily  refused  to  fall  in  with  the  popular 
conception  of  the  Messiah;  all  His  work  had  been 
moral  and  spiritual. 

The  hearing  thus  far  had  taken  place  outside  the 
palace  on  account  of  the  scruples  of  the  Jews  (John 
xviii.  28).  But  at  this  point  Pilate  entered  the  palace, 
and  had  Jesus  brought  in  also,  presumably  that  he 
might  have  some  quiet  talk  with  the  prisoner,  and  sat- 
isfy himself  whether  there  was  aught  in  the  charge 
against  Him.  When  Jesus  saw  that  Pilate  had  a  real 
desire  to  know  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  charge.  He 
admitted  that  He  was  a  King,  but  said  that  His  King- 
dom was  not  of  this  world.  His  mission  was  to  witness 
to  the  truth  (John  xviii.  34-37).  Pilate  was  satisfied  by 
this  interview  that  there  was  no  ground  for  criminal 
procedure  against  Jesus,  and  having  come  out  of  the 
palace  he  so  declared  to  the  Jews  (John  xviii.  38).  But 
the  chief  priests  reiterated  the  accusation  that  Jesus 
stirred  up  the  people,  and  declared  that  His  influ- 
ence extended  from  Galilee  throughout  all  Judea  (Luke 
xxiii.  5). 

Before  Herod  Antipas. 

The  way  in  which  Pilate  caught  the  word  Galilee  in 
the  charge  of  the  Jews,  and  hastened  to  send  Jesus  to 
Herod,  the  ruler  of  Galilee,  whose  subject  Jesus  was, 
shows  how  desirous  he  was  of  getting  rid  of  the  respon- 
sibility of  settling  the  case.  He  saw  that  he  could  not 
release  Jesus  without  incurring  the  deadly  hostility  of 


292  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

the  rulers,  and  yet  he  saw  no  ground  of  condemning 
Him. 

Only  Luke  speaks  of  Jesus'  being  before  Herod 
(Luke  xxiii.  8-12).  It  seems  that  Herod's  one  interest 
in  Jesus  was  that  he  might  see  Him  perform  a  miracle. 
He  questioned  Him,  but  we  are  not  told  what  questions 
he  asked.  He  evidently  had  no  desire  to  accept  the 
duty  of  settling  the  case,  which  Pilate  had  committed  to 
him.  Yet  he  had  authority  to  condemn  and  execute 
Jesus,  at  least  by  taking  Him  to  Galilee  or  across  the 
Jordan  into  his  own  jurisdiction  (Mark  vi.  27,  28).  For 
some  reason  he  shrank  from  the  exercise  of  this  author- 
ity, though  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  vehemently 
accused  Jesus.  Perhaps  the  memory  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, whose  innocent  blood  he  had  shed,  still  troubled 
his  conscience,  and  perhaps,  also,  his  sense  of  justice 
made  him  loath  to  accede  to  the  wishes  of  the  prose- 
cutors. Yet  he  could  not  refrain  from  taking  ven- 
geance upon  Jesus  for  having  refused  to  work  a  miracle 
before  him,  and  for  having  refused  even  to  answer  a 
single  question ;  and  so,  through  his  soldiers,  he  set 
Jesus  at  naught,  and  indulged  in  cruel  mockery  of  Him 
(Luke  xxiii.  11).  Then  he  sent  Jesus  back  to  Pilate, 
having  first  arrayed  Him  in  a  gaudy  robe  as  a  would-be 
king.  His  return  of  the  prisoner  to  Pilate  seems  to 
have  been  regarded  as  a  flattering  recognition  of  the 
superior  wisdom  or  authority  of  the  latter,  and  so  served 
to  bring  the  two  rulers  into  a  friendly  relation  to  each 
other. 


THE  LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  293 

Second  Appearance  before  Pilate. 

When  Pilate  saw  that  he  had  the  prisoner  again  on 
his  hands,  he  sought  earnestly  to  secure  His  release. 
His  desire  to  do  this  may  naturally  have  been  intensi- 
fied by  the  entreaty  which  had  come  from  his  wife  that 
he  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  "that  righteous  man" 
(Matt,  xxvii.  19).  Her  solicitude  was  based  upon  a 
dream  which  she  had  had  in  the  past  night.  This 
dream  naturally  implies  that  she  had  heard  about  Jesus 
and  had  been  deeply  impressed  by  what  she  had  heard. 

The  first  move  of  Pilate  was  to  propose  the  release 
of  Jesus  according  to  the  custom  to  set  one  prisoner  at 
liberty  at  the  feast  of  the  Passover  (John  xviii.  39).^ 
This  proposition  was  made  of  course  to  the  people  in 
general,  not  to  the  accusers  (Mark  xv.  11),  and  Pilate 
might  hope  that  it  would  be  gladly  accepted  because 
he  saw  that  it  was  the  jealousy  of  the  leaders  which 
caused  the  persecution  of  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  10).  But 
Pilate's  aim  was  thwarted  by  the  members  of  the  San- 
hedrin,  who  moved  the  people  to  ask  for  Barabbas 
(Mark  xv.  11). 

The  procurator's  next  move  was  to  satisfy  the  ene- 
mies of  Jesus  by  having  Him  scourged  (Mark  xv.  15  ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  26;  John  xix.  1-5).  The  Synoptists  here 
condense  the  story  to  such  an  extent  that  we  could  not 
get  a  clear  view  of  the  course  of  the  trial  were  it  not 

1  According  to  Mark,  the  crowd  who  had  gathered  took  the  initiative  in 
asking  the  release  of  a  prisoner,  and  Pilate  then  asked  if  they  would  have 
Jesus  (Mark  xv.  8,  9). 


294  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

for  John's  fuller  narrative.  From  this  it  is  plain  that 
the  scourging  —  for  which  there  was  of  course  no  legal 
ground,  for  Pilate  nowhere  indicates  that  he  thought 
Jesus  was  concealing  facts  from  him  which  might  be 
extorted  by  torture  —  this  scourging  was  a  device  by 
which  Pilate  hoped  to  deliver  Jesus.  In  the  terrible 
suffering  which  it  caused,  the  scourging  was  only  a  step 
removed  from  the  crucifixion  itself.  After  the  scourg- 
ing, Pilate  came  forth  with  Jesus  and  again  declared 
that  he  found  no  crime  in  Him  (John  xix.  4).  But  the 
chief  priests  and  other  foes  of  Jesus  would  not  stop  half- 
way. Their  persistent  cry  was  that  Jesus  should  be 
crucified  (John  xix.  6).  Pilate,  angry  that  he  was  balked 
again  in  his  desire  to  free  Jesus,  told  the  Jews  to  take 
Jesus  themselves  and  crucify  Him.  He  acquitted 
Him. 

The  next  step  was  brought  about  by  the  Jewish  accu- 
sation that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God  (John  xix. 
7).  That  was  the  ground  on  which  the  Sanhedrin  had 
sentenced  Him  to  death,  and  now  despairing  of  getting 
a  sentence  on  the  pohtical  charges,  they  ask  for  one  on 
this  religious  charge.  They  seek  a  judgment  according 
to  Jewish  law,  having  failed  to  get  one  according  to  the 
laws  of  Rome.  But  the  immediate  effect  of  their  accus- 
ation was  quite  the  contrary  of  that  which  they  desired. 
It  made  Pilate  the  more  afraid  to  proceed  against  Jesus 
(John  xix.  8).  Pilate's  fear  may  have  been  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  he  again  retired  with  Jesus  into  the  palace 
(John  xix.  9).     The  accusers  who,  in  the  first  part  of 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  295 

the  trial  before  Pilate,  had  refused  to  enter  the  heathen 
palace  lest  they  should  be  defiled  (John  xviii.  28),  seem 
now  to  have  laid  aside  their  scruples  in  their  thirst  for 
the  death  of  Jesus,  and  to  have  followed  Pilate  into  the 
palace  (John  xix,  12,  13).  Here  Pilate,  impressed  anew 
with  the  innocence  of  Jesus,  sought  again  to  release 
Him  (John  xix.  12),  but  was  met  with  a  political  threat, 
which  at  last  turned  the  scale  against  Jesus.  The  pro- 
secutors declared  that  he  was  not  Caesar's  friend  if  he 
released  this  pretender  to  kingly  power  (John  xix.  12). 
This  motive  was  strengthened  by  the  fear  of  a  tumult 
(Matt,  xxvii.  24),  which  might  easily  create  distrust 
against  him  at  the  seat  of  government.  So  Pilate  at 
last  decided  to  condemn  Jesus  in  order  to  save  his  own 
political  future.  Yet  there  was  still  a  struggle  within 
him.  He  confessed  that  Jesus  was  innocent  in  the  very 
moment  when  he  condemned  Him.  He  washed  his 
hands  and  vainly  tried  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  his 
act  upon  the  Jews  (Matt,  xxvii.  24).  Even  when  on  the 
judgment  seat,  which  was  erected  out  of  doors,  at  a  place 
called  the  Pavement,  in  Hebrew  Gabbatha,  and  when 
about  to  pronounce  sentence,  he  halted  and  asked  the 
Jews  if  he  should  crucify  their  king  (John  xix.  15). 
These  words  may  be  regarded  rather  as  a  mockery  of 
the  Jews  than  as  spoken  with  any  thought  of  awaken- 
ing pity  in  their  hearts,  and  leading  them  to  desist  from 
the  demand  that  Jesus  be  put  to  death.  Thus  at  last 
the  persistence  of  the  Jews  in  their  bitter  religious 
hatred  prevailed  against  Pilate's  sense  of  righteousness, 


296  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

and   drove  him  to  pronounce   the   sentence   of   death 
(comp.  Acts  iii.  13). 

At  this  juncture,  if  not  earher,  Judas  was  overcome 
by  the  consequences  of  his  treachery,  and  sought  to 
clear  himself  in  a  measure  by  the  return  of  the  money 
which  he  had  received  from  the  priests  and  elders. 

The  End  of  Judas. 

Both  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  only  writers  who  refer 
to  the  fate  of  Judas,  agree  that  there  was  a  lot  in 
Jerusalem  which  bore  the  name  field  of  blood  (Matt, 
xxvii.  8 ;  Acts  i.  19),  and  that  this  field  was  in  some 
way  associated  with  Judas.  According  to  Matthew  it 
was  called  the  field  of  blood  because  it  was  bought 
with  the  blood-money  which  Judas  received  for  betray- 
ing Jesus  to  death  ;  while  according  to  Luke  this  name 
was  given  to  it  because  the  blood  of  Judas  himself  was 
shed  there.  But  they  agree  as  to  the  name  of  the  field, 
and  that  it  was  bought  with  the  money  which  the  chief 
priests  gave  to  Judas.  In  all  other  points  they  differ. 
According  to  Matthew,  the  priests  bought  the  lot  as  a 
burial  place  for  strangers;  according  to  Luke,  Judas 
himself  bought  it,  presumably  to  enjoy.  The  first 
Gospel  says  that  Judas  committed  suicide  by  hanging ; 
according  to  Luke,  he  was  killed  by  a  fall.  It  appears 
from  these  statements  that  the  circumstances  of  the 
death  of  Judas  were  not  positively  ascertainable  when 
the  evangelists  composed  their  Gospels.  It  was  known 
that  he  had  met  a  violent  death,  but  it   may  be  sup- 


THE  LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  297 

posed  that  early  believers  had  gladly  dropped  the  tragic 
details  from  memory. 

To   Golgotha. 

Jesus  went  forth  from  the  place  of  judgment  bearing 
His  own  cross  (John  xix.  17),  but  at  some  point  on  the 
way  to  Golgotha,  Simon  of  Cyrene,  father  of  Alexander 
and  Rufus,  who  were,  perhaps,  known  in  the  Roman 
church  when  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  (Mark  xv.  21  ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  32  ;  Luke  xxiii.  26),  was  compelled  to  bear 
the  cross.  The  reason  of  this  is  not  indicated,  but  it 
may  well  be  that  the  strength  of  Jesus  had  been  so 
reduced  by  the  cruel  scourging  and  by  the  exhausting 
incidents  of  the  past  night,  that  He  was  not  able  to 
carry  the  cross  all  the  way. 

As  the  procession  moved  toward  Golgotha,  a  great 
throng  of  people  followed  Jesus,  and  certain  women 
smote  upon .  their  breasts  and  wept  (Luke  xxiii.  27). 
Jesus,  in  response  to  this  sympathy,  said  nothing  of  His 
own  sufferings,  but  pointed  to  those  which  would  come 
upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  He  alluded  figura- 
tively to  His  own  fate,  but  only  to  heighten  the  doom  of 
the  Jews  (Luke  xxiii.  28-31).  He  did  not  feel  that  He 
was  to  be  compassionated,  for  He  was  doing  the  will  of 
God,  as  He  had  always  done ;  but  they  were  those  for 
whom  there  should  be  wailing  and  beating  of  the  breasts. 

The  traditional  site  of  Golgotha  is  about  a  quarter  of 
a  mile  west  from  the  northwest  corner  of  the  temple, 
and  within  the   walls  of  Jerusalem.      Recent  scholars 


298  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

generally  agree  that  this  place  is  not  the  site  of  the 
crucifixion.  The  narrative  calls  for  a  place  without  the 
city  (John  xix.  20),  but  near  to  it,  and  near  also  to  a 
highway  (Mark  xv.  29).  The  place  now  quite  com- 
monly accepted  as  the  site  lies  on  the  north  of  the 
city,  near  the  Damascus  gate,  and  hence  near  a  high- 
way. If  Jesus  was  tried  in  the  tower  of  Antonia,  or  in 
its  immediate  vicinity,  the  distance  which  He  walked  to 
the  place  of  crucifixion  may  have  been  about  a  third  of 
a  mile,  but  if  His  trial  was  at  Herod's  palace  this  dis- 
tance must  be  somewhat  more  than  doubled. 

The  Execution. 

In  regard  to  the  hour  of  the  crucifixion,  the  nar- 
ratives are  not  at  one.  The  oldest  Gospel  says  it  was 
the  third  hour  (Mark  xv.  25);  John  says  it  was  about 
the  sixth  hour  when  Pilate  sat  on  the  judgment  seat 
and  gave  sentence  (John  xix.  14,  15).  .Accordingly 
the  crucifixion  must  have  been  somewhat  after  the  sixth 
hour.  This  estimate  by  John  better  accords  with  the 
probabilities  of  the  case  than  does  that  by  Mark.  It 
was  early  morning  when  Jesus  was  brought  before  the 
Roman  governor  for  trial.  After  some  time  He  was 
sent  to  Herod  Antipas,  where  the  priests  brought  many 
accusations  against  Him,  and  where  He  was  mocked 
and  abused.  Then  back  again  to  Pilate,  who  made 
repeated  attempts  to  secure  the  release  of  Jesus,  among 
these  the  scourging  which  must  have  occupied  not  a 
little  time.      Then  came  the  sentence,  which  Pilate  put 


THE   LAST  EIGHT  DAYS 


299 


off  as  long  as  he  could,  then  the  preparations  for  the 
execution  of  three  persons,  and  the  slow  journey  to 
Golgotha.  It  seems  doubtful  whether  all  this  could 
have  been  accompHshed  before  the  third  hour.  The 
fact  that  John  was  present  at  the  crucifixion  is  also  a 
reason  why  we  should  accept  his  estimate.  It  is  not 
probable  that  any  one  was  particular  to  observe  the 
exact  time  of  the  execution,  if  indeed  those  interested 
had  any  means  of  accurate  observation ;  ^  but  John's 
estimate  that  it  was  about  noon  is  probably  to  be 
accepted  as  a  correct  approximation.^ 

Jesus  was  crucified  by  four  Roman  soldiers,  and  two 
robbers  were  crucified  with  Him  (John  xix.  18,  23). 
It  may  have  been  at  the  instigation  of  the  priests  that 
Jesus  was  placed  between  the  robbers. 

The  shape  of  the  cross  used  is  unknown,  but  the 
fact  that  the  superscription  was  placed  above  Jesus 
favors  the  so-called  crux  imniissa,  which  is  the  tradi- 
tional form  of  the  cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  37).  A  suggestion 
as  to  the  height  of  the  cross  is  found  in  the  circum- 
stance that  the  man  who  offered  Jesus  the  sponge 
filled  with  vinegar,  first  attached  the  sponge  to  a  reed 
(Mark  xv.  36;  Matt,  xxvii.  48).  Manifestly  he  could 
not  reach  the  lips  of  Jesus  without  this  aid.  Mark  and 
Matthew  say  that  a  mixture  of  wine  and  myrrh  ^  was 

1  See  W.  M.  Ramsay,  Expositor,  Vol.  VH.  1893. 

2  Weiss  and  Beyschlag  both  follow  John. 

3  Matthew's  expression  —  6^os  /uerd  xoX^s  —  is  more  general  than 
Mark's,  but  not  necessarily  divergent  from  that. 


300  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

offered  to  Jesus  before  He  was  crucified,  and  that  He 
refused  it.  The  Jews  had  a  custom  of  giving  to 
criminals  a  strong  drink  that  rendered  them  more  or 
less  unconscious.^  This  was  not  received  by  Jesus, 
for  He  wished  to  endure  His  fate  consciously.  It 
was  a  cup  which  His  Father  had  given  Him  to 
drink. 

John  tells  us  that  the  garments  of  Jesus  were  divided 
into  four  parts,  one  for  each  of  the  four  soldiers  who 
executed  Him,  and  that  they  cast  lots  for  His  seamless 
tunic,  thus  in  John's  thought  fulfilling  Psalm  xxii.  i8. 
The  hate  of  the  Jews  was  not  quenched  by  the  blood 
that  flowed  from  the  wounds  of  Jesus.  They  sought 
to  heighten  His  sufferings  by  mockery.  People  pass- 
ing by  in  the  road  mocked  Jesus,  asking  Him  to  come 
down  from  the  cross  if  He  was  the  Son  of 'God,  —  He 
who  had  boasted  that  He  could  destroy  the  temple  and 
build  it  again  in  three  days  (Mark  xv.  29,  30;  Matt. 
xxvii.  40).  The  chief  priests  and  scribes  improved  the 
opportunity  of  taking  revenge  on  Jesus  for  His  scath- 
ing denunciations  of  them  in  the  temple.  They  taunted 
Him  with  claiming  to  be  the  king  of  Israel  and  the  Son 
of  God,  and  said  they  would  believe  His  claim  if  He 
would  come  down  from  the  cross  (Mark  xv.  31,  32; 
Matt,  xxvii.  41-43;  Luke  xxiii.  35).  One  at  least  of 
the  robbers  joined  in  the  insults  (Mark  xv.  32 ;  Luke 
xxiii.  39). 

1  Friedlieb,  Archaologie  der  Leidensgeschichte,  pp.  140-142. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  30I 

TJie  Last   Words  of  Jesus. 

Seven  utterances  of  Jesus  upon  the  cross  are  given 
by  the  evangelists,  namely,  one  by  Mark  and  one  by 
Matthew,  three  by  Luke  and  three  by  John.  The 
probable  order  of  the  words,  doubtful  in  one  or  two 
cases,  is  as  follows :  — 

(i)  "Father,  forgive  them;  for  they  know  not  what 
they  do."     Luke  xxiii.  34. 

(2)  "Woman,  behold  thy  son!"  Then  saith  He  to 
the  disciple,  "  Behold,  thy  mother !  "     John  xix.  26,  27. 

(3)  "This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise." 
Luke  xxiii.  43. 

(4)  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  .?  " 
Mark  xv.  34 ;  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 

(5)  "I  thirst."     John  xix.  28. 

(6)  "It  is  finished."     John  xix.  30. 

(7)  "  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit." 
Luke  xxiii.  46. 

The  first  of  these  sayings  is  sometimes  regarded  as 
unhistorical  on  the  ground  that  no  friend  could  have 
been  near  enough  to  hear  a  prayer  of  Jesus  had  there 
been  one  to  hear.^  But  the  narrative  nowhere  suggests 
that  people  were  kept  at  any  great  distance  from  the 
cross.  On  the  contrary,  the  fourth  Gospel  relates  that 
its  author  and  several  women  were  near  to  Jesus  and 
did  hear  His  words  (John  xix.  25). 

The  Synoptic  statement  that  many  women  were 
beholding  from  afar  when  Jesus  expired,  does  not  at 

1  Weiss,  Das  Leben /esu,  II.  578,  579. 


302  THE   STUDENT'S    LIFE  OF   JESUS 

all  prove  that  they  had  been  far  off  during  all  the  hours 
in  which  Jesus  had  hung  on  the  cross  (Mark  xv.  40 ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  55-56).  Hence  we  see  no  reason  to  ques- 
tion the  genuineness  of  this  saying  which  Luke  pre- 
serves. Those  for  whom  Jesus  prayed  were,  naturally, 
the  executioners.  Of  them,  but  not  of  the  Jewish 
leaders,  could  it  be  said  that  they  knew  not  what  they 
were  doing. 

The  thoughtful  and  filial  love  of  Jesus  is  illustrated 
in  His  committal  of  His  mother  to  John.  His  Messianic 
consciousness  appears  in  the  promise  to  the  penitent 
robber.  In  the  midst  of  His  agony  He  is  serenely  con- 
scious that  He  can  bestow  eternal  life.  On  the  verge 
of  the  grave,  when  the  powers  of  darkness  were  cele- 
brating their  triumph  over  Him,  He  was  as  confident 
of  the  future  as  He  had  been  on  the  brightest  day  of 
His  divine  ministry. 

The  fourth  saying  may  mark  the  extremity  of  physical 
and  spiritual  suffering,  and  doubtless  covers  a  depth 
which  no  one  can  fathom. 

The  Synoptic  narrative  regarding  the  consequence  of 
this  fourth  word  of  Jesus  is  exceedingly  obscure  (Mark 
XV.  35,  36;  Matt,  xxvii.  47-49).  Mark  and  Matthew 
represent  the  giving  of  drink  to  Jesus  as  occasioned  by 
His  cry,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me  1 "  Some  thought  that  Jesus  was  summoning  Elias, 
because  the  Aramaic  word  which  is  translated  viy  God 
resembled  in  sound  the  name  Elias.  But  from  this 
point  Mark  and  Matthew  are  at  variance,  for  according 


THE  LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  303 

to  Mark  the  man  who  gives  drink  to  Jesus  says  to  the 
others,  ''  Let  us  see  if  EUas  comes  to  take  Him  down  "  ; 
while  According  to  Matthew,  the  bystanders  say  this  to 
the  man  who  gave  Jesus  drink.  The  words  are  unin- 
telUgible  in  Mark.  The  Synoptic  confusion  is  partly 
removed  when  we  suppose  that  the  fifth  word,  the  ''  I 
thirst"  of  John  xix.  28,  was  spoken  immediately  after 
the  "My  God."  This  expressed  wish  of  Jesus  for  some- 
thing to  drink  was  what  led  a  certain  man  to  put  a 
sponge  filled  with  sour  wine  to  His  lips.  This  man, 
who  understood  Jesus'  request  for  drink,  probably  did 
not  misunderstand  His  previous  word  ;  but  some  others, 
who  had  misunderstood  it,  called  to  the  man  that  he 
should  not  give  drink  to  Jesus,  but  wait  and  see  whether 
Elias  would  come  and  reheve  Him,  as  Matthew  says. 

The  sixth  word,  "It  is  finished,"  naturally  refers  to 
the  suffering  on  the  cross,  not  to  Jesus'  earthly  work. 
His  earthly  work  certainly  included  the  resurrection. 
This  was  the  culminating  proof  which  He  gave  of  His 
Messiahship,  and  this  was  not  yet  finished.  What  was 
finished  was  the  cup  which  He  had  received,  the  agony 
of  the  cross.  This  was  now  forever  past,  and  with  the 
loud  shout  of  a  victor  the  seventh  word  is  uttered,  in 
which  Jesus  commits  His  spirit  into  the  hands  of  the 
Father  (Mark  xv.  37;  Matt,  xxvii.  50;  Luke  xxiii.  46). 
Here  again  is  blessed  and  close  fellowship,  even  that 
fellowship  which  Jesus  had  always  had  with  the  Father, 
unless  we  except  that  part  of  the  time  on  the  cross 
when  He  had  made  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  (xxii.  i) 


304  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

His  own,  and  cried  in  the  unutterable  agony  of  His 
spirit,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?" 

Portents. 

The  Synoptists  agree  in  reporting  an  uncommon  dark- 
ness which  was  over  the  land  from  about  noon  till  about 
three  o'clock  (Mark  xv.  33  ;  Matt,  xxvii.  45  ;  Luke  xxiii. 
44,  45).  The  statement  is  that  this  darkness  covered 
all  the  land,  by  which  is  probably  meant  all  the  region 
around  Jerusalem,  far  and  wide.  There  is  no  indication 
that  the  evangelists  regarded  the  darkness  as  a  miracu- 
lous event.  Yet  it  could  not  have  been  an  eclipse  of 
the  sun,  for  the  Passover  came  at  the  time  of  the  full 
moon.  Luke's  statement  that  the  sun's  light  failed 
does  not  require  us  to  suppose  that  he  thought  of  an 
eclipse.  We  are  probably  to  think  of  an  exceptional 
darkness  caused  by  thick  clouds,  providential,  but  not 
miraculous. 

The  Synoptists  also  speak  of  a  rending  of  the  great 
veil  of  the  sanctuary,  which  together  with  a  door  shut 
off  the  Holy  of  Holies ;  and  they  associate  this  event 
closely  with  the  death  of  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  38 ;  Matt. 
xxvii.  51  ;  Luke  xxiii.  45).  Yet  it  is  doubtful  whether 
their  language  can  be  taken  literally.  If  the  veil  was 
rent  in  twain  without  a  rending  of  the  temple  itself,  it 
was  apparently  a  miracle ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no 
adequate  ground  for  such  a  miracle.  There  was  then, 
and  was  ever  to  be,  far  better  evidence  for  believers 


THE  LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  305 

that  they  had  access  into  the  very  presence  of  the 
Father,  than  the  fact  of  a  rent  veil  in  the  temple  would 
be.  Moreover  such  a  miracle  could  scarcely  have  oc- 
curred in  the  very  centre  of  the  Jewish  ritual  without 
leaving  traces  on  Jewish  literature.  It  certainly  is  not 
probable  that  the  veil  was  miraculously  rent  to  betoken 
the  impending  destruction  of  the  temple,  and  so  to  be  a 
sign  for  the  Jews.  The  word  of  Jesus  announcing  that 
destruction,  needed  no  physical  confirmation ;  and  it  is 
not  in  keeping  with  the  method  of  Jesus  to  suppose  that 
He  gave  such  a  miraculous  sign  to  the  unbelieving  Jews 
(comp.  Mark  viii.  12).  The  evidence  cited  by  Eders- 
heim^  to  prove  that  something  remarkable  happened  in 
the  temple  about  this  time  is  wholly  unsatisfactory.  The 
prodigies  of  which  Tacitus^  and  Josephus^  speak  are 
associated  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  no 
wise  concern  the  death  of  Jesus.  Jerome  thinks  the 
veil  was  rent  by  the  breaking  of  the  lintel  of  the  temple, 
but  his  only  authority  for  the  breaking  of  the  lintel  is 
the  corrupted  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 

But  while  it  is  difficult  to  regard  this  statement  as 
strictly  historical,  it  is  also  difficult  to  suppose  that  the 
evangeHst  used  this  language  figuratively,  in  keeping 
with  Hebrews  x.  19-20;  for  it  is  in  the  midst  of  a  his- 
torical narrative. 

Another   portent   is   found   in  Matthew  only  (Matt. 

1  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah^  II.  610. 

2  History,  v.  13. 
^Jewish  War,  vi.  5.  3. 

X 


306  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

xxvii.  51-53).  He  speaks  of  an  earthquake  in  connec- 
tion with  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  in  consequence  of  the 
earthquake  rocks  were  rent  and  tombs  (which  were  fre- 
quently rock-hewn)  were  opened.  Many  bodies  of 
saints  were  raised,  and  coming  out  of  the  tombs  after 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  they  entered  into  Jerusalem 
and  appeared  to  many.  Numerous  and  grave  difficul- 
ties beset  the  view  that  these  statements  are  strictly 
historical.  The  idea  that  it  was  necessary  to  open  the 
grave  in  order  that  the  departed  might  appear,  presup- 
poses a  material  resurrection,  which  also  seems  to  be 
implied  in  the  statement  that  bodies  of  saints  arose. 
But  when  it  is  said  that  these  appeared  to  many  peo- 
ple in  Jerusalem,  the  verb  employed  (ifxcfyavi^etv)  is  one 
which,  when  used  of  appearances,  denotes  only  those  of 
a  spiritual  sort  (John  xiv.  21,  22  ;  Heb.  ix.  24).  But  if 
it  was  spirits  that  appeared,  then  of  course  it  was  not 
necessary  that  the  tombs  should  be  opened.  Further, 
the  tombs  are  represented  as  being  opened  on  the  day 
of  the  crucifixion,  but  the  bodies  of  the  saints  did  not 
come  forth  until  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  (Matt, 
xxvii.  53).  It  is  possible  that  this  narrative  is  an  at- 
tempt to  put  into  historical  and  objective  form  the  great 
thought  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  stood  in  a  vital 
relation  to  the  resurrection  of  all  the  saints,  and  that,  as 
Paul  says,  Christ  was  the  firstfruits  of  them  that  slept 
(i  Cor.  XV.  20).  One  item  which  singularly  confirms 
this  view  is  that  Matthew  speaks  of  the  resurrection 
of  mauf  of  the  saints.     Had  the  narrative  been  dealing 


THE   LAST   EIGHT  DAYS  307 

with  a  historical  fact,  then  we  should  be  justified  in 
asking  why  all  the  saints  were  not  raised.  If  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  brought  with  it  the  resurrection  of 
the  saints  who  were  buried  about  Jerusalem,  then  why 
not  the  quickening  of  all  the  saints  ? 

TJie  Death  of  Jesus. 

Jesus  expired  after  He  had  been  on  the  cross  only 
about  three  hours. ^  It  was  usual  for  the  sufferings  of 
a  crucified  one  to  last  much  longer  than  this.  Pilate 
was  surprised  when  he  heard,  toward  evening,  that 
Jesus  was  already  dead,  and  seemed  scarcely  willing 
to  believe  it  until  he  had  called  the  centurion  and 
inquired  of  him  (Mark  xv.  44).  According  to  John 
xix.  31,  Pilate  gave  permission  during  the  afternoon 
that  the  legs  of  the  crucified  ones  should  be  broken, 
that  death  might  thus  be  hastened,  and  that  the  bodies 
might  be  taken  away  before  the  beginning  of  the  Sab- 
bath. We  may  suppose  that  he  gave  this  permission 
shortly  before  Joseph  of  Arimathea  told  him  that  Jesus 
was  dead. 

All  the  Synoptists  say  that  Jesus  died  as  a  strong 
man,  or  as  a  victor,  with  a  loud  shout  (Mark  xv.  37; 
Matt,  xxvii.  50 ;  Luke  xxiii.  46).  It  is  natural  to  bring 
this  fact  into  connection  with  the  word  of  Jesus  in 
John,  that  He  had  authority  to  lay  down  His  life  and 
authority  to  take  it  again  (John  x.  18).  This  suggests 
that  the  manner  of   His  death  was  as  truly  Messianic 

1  According  to  Mark,  about  six  hours. 


308  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

as  was  His  resurrection.  But  there  is  nothing  super- 
natural in  the  way  in  which  Jesus  laid  down  His  life 
unless  it  be  found  in  the  statement  that  He  expired 
with  a  great  shout.  We  may,  therefore,  suppose  that 
after  Jesus  had  tasted  all  the  bitterness  of  death,  God 
intervened  in  His  behalf  and  gave  Him  authority  to 
lay  down  His  hfe  by  a  supreme  act  of  His  will.  So 
His  death  was  in  the  fullest  possible  sense  voluntary. 

According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  it  was  this  most  re- 
markable death  which  led  the  centurion  to  exclaim, 
''truly  this  man  was  a  son  of  a  god"  (Mark  xv. 
39 ;  Luke  xxiii.  47),^  that  is,  a  superhuman  and  divine 
being. 

John  says  that  a  soldier  pierced  the  side  of  Jesus 
with  a  lance,  when  it  was  seen  that  He  was  dead,  and 
says  that  water  and  blood  came  forth  (John  xix.  34). 
If  John  attached  any  special  significance  to  this  fact, 
as  he  seems  to  have  done,  that  significance  cannot  now 
be  made  out  with  certainty.  He  saw  a  fulfilment  of 
Scripture  in  the  fact  that  the  legs  of  Jesus  were  not 
broken  and  also  in  the  fact  that  His  side  was  pierced 
(John  xix.  36,  37),  but  he  does  not  suggest  what  mean- 
ing he  saw  in  the  issue  of  blood  and  water.^ 
« 

1  a\r]6us  ovtos  6  HvOpcoTros  vlbs  ^v  deov,  not  ^Ae  Son  of  God,  nor  the 
son  of  God,  but  a  son  of  a  god.  For  we  have  no  right  to  assume  that 
this  centurion  had  any  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  or  of  the  true 
God. 

2  There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for  finding  in  i  John  v.  6  an 
allusion  to  the  event  of  John  xix.  34. 


THE   LAST  EIGHT  DAYS  309 

The  Burial  of  Jesus. 

According  to  the  Jewish  law  (Deut.  xxi.  23),  the 
body  of  one  who  had  been  hung  was  not  to  remain  on 
the  tree  over  night,  the  reason  being  that  such  an  one 
was  accursed  of  God,  and  the  exposure  of  the  body 
over  night  would  defile  the  land.  In  the  case  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  and  the  bodies  of  the  robbers  there  was 
special  urgency  that  they  should  be  taken  down  and 
buried  before  dark,  because  the  next  day  was  Sabbath, 
and  being  in  the  Passover  week  was  a  high  or  doubly 
sacred  Sabbath  (John  xix.  31). 

According  to  John  (xix.  31),  the  religious  leaders 
asked  Pilate  that  the  bodies  might  be  taken  away, 
death  having  first  been  produced  by  breaking  the 
limbs.  This  request  he  granted ;  but  before  the  body 
of  Jesus  had  been  removed,  Joseph  of  Arimathea 
secured  Pilate's  permission  to  take  it  away  for  burial 
(John  xix.  38). 

This  Joseph  was  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin,  but 
secretly  a  disciple  of  Jesus ;  and  therefore  he  had  not 
consented  to  the  counsel  of  the  Jews  (Mark  xv.  43  ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  57;  Luke  xxiii.  50,  51).  With  him  Nico- 
demus  was  associated  in  the  burial  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
—  the  same  one  who  had  come  to  the  Lord  by  night 
at  His  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  (John  xix.  38,  39;  iii.  i,  2). 
He  also  was  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin. 

Joseph  procured  linen  with  which  to  enswathe  the 
body,  and  he  also  furnished  a  tomb  (Mark  xv.  46), 
while  Nicodemus  brought  a  hundred  pounds  of  myrrh 


3IO  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

and  aloes  (John  xix.  39).     The  tomb  of  Joseph  was  in 
a  garden  near  Golgotha,  and  was  new  (John  xix.  41). 

According  to  Jewish  law,  the  bodies  of  those  who 
had  been  executed  could  not  be  interred  in  the  ordinary- 
burial  places,  but  must  be  buried  apart. ^  It  is  remark- 
able that  no  one  of  the  eleven  disciples,  not  even  John, 
had  any  part  in  the  burial  of  Jesus.  It  may  be  that 
John  had  gone  to  take  Mary  to  his  home,  and  so  was 
absent  when  the  body  of  Jesus  was  buried.  Of  the 
other  ten  apostles,  no  one,  as  far  as  the  record  goes, 
witnessed  the  crucifixion.  Two  women,  Mary  Magda- 
lene and  Mary  the  mother  of  Joses,  beheld  the  tomb 
from  a  distance  (Mark  xv.  47;  Matt,  xxvii,  61),  but 
seem  not  to  have  known  that  Joseph  and  Nicodemus 
had  embalmed  the  body,  and  fully  prepared  it  for  burial 
(Mark  xvi.  i ;  Luke  xxiii.  56-xxiv.  i). 

TJie  To7nb  Sealed. 

According  to  Matthew,  the  chief  priests  and  Phari- 
sees went  to  Pilate  on  the  Sabbath,  and  asked  that  the 
sepulchre  of  Jesus  be  made  sure  till  the  third  day  (xxvii. 
62-66).  The  ground  of  this  was  their  fear  that  His 
disciples  v^ould  steal  the  body,  and  so  be  able  to  make 
people  believe  that  the  word  of  Jesus  about  His  rising 
after  three  days  was  fulfilled. 

Many  scholars  doubt  the  historical  character  of  this 
narrative.2    It  is  said  that  the  oldest  tradition  knows  noth- 

1  Wunsche,  Erl'dtiterting  der  Evangelien,  etc.,  p.  561. 

2  E.g.,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Beyschlag. 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  311 

ing  of  such  a  guard,  and,  indeed,  excludes  the  possibility 
of  one.  For  it  represents  the  women  as  coming  to  the 
tomb  on  the  morning  of  the  resurrection,  thinking  only 
how  the  stojie  should  be  rolled  away,  but  not  solicitous 
about  a  Roman  guard  (Mark  xvi.  3).  It  is  consequently 
assumed  that  both  they  and  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
did  not  know  of  the  incident  which  Matthew  relates. 
There  is  manifestly  much  force  in  this  objection,  but 
can  it  be  regarded  as  conclusive  t  Matthew  represents 
the  sealing  of  the  tomb  as  taking  place  on  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  that  is,  the  day  after  the  crucifixion,  and  it 
was  done  by  the  enemies  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xxvii.  62). 
Hence  it  is  easy  to  suppose  that  the  women  had 
learned  nothing  of  it,  since  they  did  not  visit  the  tomb 
on  the  Sabbath.  They  observed  the  tomb  after  the 
body  of  Jesus  had  been  put  into  it  (Mark  xv.  47),  and 
the  next  time  they  saw  it  was  on  the  morning  of  the 
resurrection. 

The  fact  that  Mark  represents  the  women  as  coming 
with  no  thought  of  a  Roman  watch  does,  indeed,  favor 
the  view  that  he  was  ignorant  of  that  watch  ;  but  we 
cannot  argue  that,  because  he  was  ignorant  of  the 
watch,  therefore  there  was  no  watch. 

Again,  it  is  said  to  be  incredible  that  the  priests 
should  have  been  so  well  acquainted  with  Jesus' 
prophecy  concerning  His  resurrection,  which  even  His 
disciples  had  not  understood.  But  there  is  a  difference 
between  the  knowledge  that  Jesus  had  prophesied  His 
resurrection,  and  a   comprehension   of  what  this  word 


312  THE  STUDENT'S    LIFE   OF   JESUS 

meant.  It  does  not  appear  incredible  that  members 
of  the  Sanhedrin  should  have  heard  of  this  strange 
utterance  of  Jesus,  and  especially  as  some  of  the  mem- 
bers were  inwardly  drawn  to  Him.  Then  it  must  be 
remembered  that  one  of  the  apostles  of  Jesus  had  been 
for  days  in  close  communication  with  the  priests.  But 
having  heard  of  the  prophecy,  the  priests  surely  would 
not  neglect  any  precaution  which  might  now  be  sug- 
gested to  guard  against  a  renewal  of  the  influence  of 
their  dead  rival. 

Further,  it  is  said  to  be  incredible  that  the  priests 
would  at  once  believe  the  report  of  the  soldiers  who 
told  them  of  the  occurrences  at  the  tomb,  when  Jesus' 
own  disciples  refused  to  believe  until  they  had  seen  the 
risen  One,  and  had  had  other  proof  of  the  reality  of  the 
event.  But  in  reply  to  this  objection,  we  must  notice 
that  Matthew  does  not  say,  or  imply,  that  the  chief 
priests  believed  in  the  restirrection  of  Jesus  on  the  re- 
port of  the  soldiers.  It  is  not  even  said  that  the  sol- 
diers reported  that  Jesus  had  ids  en.  They  had  been 
struck  with  amazement  by  some  strange  sight  or 
sound,  and  knew  that  the  tomb  had  been  opened,  but 
there  is  no  evidence  that  they  knew  of  Jesus'  resurrec- 
tion. They  certainly  had  not  seen  Him  come  forth 
from  the  tomb,  and  the  message  which  came  to  the 
Jewish  women  at  the  tomb,  they,  as  Roman  soldiers, 
could  not  understand.  Therefore,  whatever  they  may 
have  reported  to  the  chief  priests,  they  did  not  report 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus.     If   they  reported  that  the 


THE   LAST   EIGHT   DAYS  313 

tomb  had  been  suddenly  and  wondrously  opened,  and 
even  if  they  reported  that  it  was  empty,  it  is  not  incred- 
ible that  the  priests  believed  their  report.  If  they 
had  been  in  any  doubt,  they  could  easily  have  satisfied 
themselves  that  the  tomb  was  empty.  Perhaps  they 
did  this.  And  then  it  is  objected  further  that  Roman 
soldiers  would  not  have  risked  their  lives  by  allowing 
the  story  to  go  abroad  that  they  had  slept  at  their  post 
(Matt,  xxviii.  13).  But  it  is  not  so  certain  that  they  did 
risk  their  lives.  They  had  the  Sanhedrin  on  their  side, 
and  it  had  been  seen  in  the  last  days  that  the  Sanhedrin 
was  able  to  bend  Pilate  to  its  will.  And  then,  even  if 
there  was  some  risk,  there  was  also  large  money,  and 
men  have  never  been  wanting  who  would  risk  their 
lives  for  money.  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that 
we  find  no  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  the  historicity 
of  this  narrative. 


CHAPTER   XVII 
The  Resurrection  and  the  Risen  Christ 

The    Women  with  Spices. 

Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  agree  that  Mary  Magda- 
lene came  early  to  the  tomb  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xxviii.  i  ; 
Mark  xvi.  i  ;  John  xx.  i).  John  mentions  no  one  else, 
though  at  least  one  other  is  implied  (John  xx.  2).  Mat- 
thew mentions  also  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and 
Joses  (Matt,  xxvii.  56,  61  ;  xxviii.  i),  and  Mark  men- 
tions both  these  and  Salome  (Mark  xvi.  i).  Luke  men- 
tions Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and 
Joanna  —  thus  in  all  four  women  are  mentioned  by 
name  (Luke  xxiv.  10). 

According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  these  women  had  come 
to  the  tomb  to  anoint  the  body  of  the  Lord  (Mark  xvi. 
I  ;  Luke  xxiv.  i),  while  Matthew  speaks  only  of  their 
coming  to  behold  the  tomb  (Matt,  xxviii.  i).  ^  This 
mission  of  the  women,  according  to  Mark  and  Luke,  is 
in  accord  with  what  the  Synoptists  say  concerning  the 
burial  of  Jesus.  They  do  not  speak  of  an  embalming 
of  the  body,  but  only  say  that  it  was  wrapped  in  a  linen 

1  As  to  the  time  when  they  bought  the  spices,  Mark  and  Luke,  who 
alone  refer  to  it,  seem  to  differ  (Mark  xvi.  i  ;  Luke  xxiii.  56).  Mark 
places  it  after  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  Luke  puts  it  before  the  Sabbath. 

314 


THE   RESURRECTION   AND  THE   RISEN   CHRIST       315 

cloth  and  laid  in  the  tomb.  Luke's  statement  that  as 
they  laid  the  body  in  the  tomb,  the  Sabbath  drew  on, 
suggests  that  there  was  not  time  to  embalm  it  (Luke 
xxiii.  54).  But  John  informs  us  that  Joseph  and  Nico- 
demus  embalmed  the  body  of  Jesus,  using  about  a  hun- 
dred pounds  of  myrrh  and  aloes  (John  xix.  39,  40),  and 
his  narrative  seems  to  imply  that  the  burial  custom  of 
the  Jews  was  wholly  observed. 

Now  since  John  was  present  at  the  crucifixion  (John 
xix.  26,  27),  it  is  not  impossible  that  he  also  sa\^  the 
burial,  though  his  presence  is  not  mentioned.  There  is 
no  indication  that  any  other  one  of  the  apostles  was 
present  at  the  crucifixion.  They  fled  at  the  time  of  the 
arrest  of  Jesus  (Mark  xiv.  50),  and  with  the  exception 
of  Peter,  do  not  appear  again  on  the  scene  till  after  the 
resurrection.  Moreover,  as  John  was  acquainted  with 
the  high  priest,  it  is  easy  to  suppose  that  he  might  learn 
what  had  been  done  by  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  even 
if  he  had  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  circumstances 
of  the  burial.  Further,  it  is  intrinsically  probable  that 
friends  of  Jesus,  like  Joseph  and  Nicodemus,  embalmed 
the  body  of  their  Master,  even  if  the  Sabbath  was  just 
drawing  on.  They  could  scarcely  have  entertained  the 
thought  of  leaving  the  embalmment  two  nights  and  a 
day  until  the  Sabbath  should  be  past.  Therefore  we 
accept  John's  narrative  of  the  burial,  and  hold  that  the 
women  did  not  know  what  had  been  done  by  Joseph 
and  Nicodemus.  Nor  should  this  ignorance  of  the 
women  be  thought  strange.     It  is  not  likely  that  they 


3l6  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

were  acquainted  with  these  high  officials,  or  had  on  the 
Sabbath  any  opportunity  to  learn  what  had  been  done 
at  the  burial  of  their  Master. 

It  was  still  dark  when  the  women  reached  the  tomb 
in  Joseph's  garden  (John  xx.  i),  though  the  sunlight 
may  already  have  been  visible  on  the  mountain  tops 
(Mark  xvi.  2).  All  the  evangelists  agree  that  they 
found  the  tomb  open,  but  only  Matthew  attempts  to 
say  how  it  was  opened. 

The  Earthquake  and  the  Angel. 

As  Matthew  has  an  earthquake  at  the  death  of  Jesus, 
so  also  at  His  resurrection  (Matt,  xxviii.  2);  and  this 
earthquake  is  thought  of  as  caused  (7^/?)  by  the  rolling 
away  of  the  stone  through  an  angel.  Matthew  seems 
to  have  thought  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away  just  as 
the  women  drew  near.  The  angel  was  still  sitting  upon 
the  stone,  and  the  guards  were  prostrate  through  great 
fear  (Matt,  xxviii.  2-4). 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  other  evangelists  say  noth- 
ing of 'these  events.  John  and  Peter,  who  were  first  at 
the  tomb,  after  the  women,  would  have  learned  these 
facts,  we  may  naturally  suppose ;  yet  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  which  rests  on  Peter's  preaching,  and  the  Gospel 
of  John  do  not  refer  to  these  things.  Further,  it  is  not 
manifest  what  the  earthquake  was  for,  since  an  angel 
removed  the  stone. 

It  is  possible  that  Matthew's  description  is  an  at- 
tempt to  set  forth  concretely  the  majesty  of  the  great 


THE   RESURRECTION  AND  THE   RISEN   CHRIST      317 

event ;  or  it  is  conceivable  that  this  part  of  the  account 
of  the  resurrection  was  a  tradition  which  the  author 
found  and  adopted  because  he  thought  it  was  in  keep- 
ing with  the  majesty  of  the  event. 

But  however  the  stone  was  removed,  the  narratives 
agree,  as  has  been  said,  that  the  women  found  the 
tomb  open. 

TJie  Resurrection. 

It  is  noticeable  that  no  one  of  the  evangelists  alludes 
to  the  act  of  Jesus'  coming  forth  from  the  tomb.  At 
what  hour  He  came  forth,  in  what  manner  He  came 
forth,  in  what  dress  —  all  this  is  hidden  from  us.  But 
if  the  accounts  of  the  resurrection  were  simply  the 
inventions  of  men,  we  should  look  for  information  on 
these  very  points.  The  Gospel  of  Peter,  which  is  as- 
cribed to  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  professes  to 
give  information  in  regard  to  the  very  act  of  resurrec- 
tion.i  Having  described  how  two  youths  descended 
from  the  opened  heavens  and  entered  the  tomb  in  the 
sight  of  the  soldiers,  it  continues  :  "  They  see  three  men 
come  forth  from  the  grave,  and  the  two  support  the 
One,  and  a  cross  follows  them  ;  and  the  heads  of  the 
two  reach  to  the  heaven,  but  the  head  of  the  One  whom 
they  lead  rises  above  the  heaven.  And  they  heard  a 
voice  out  of  heaven,  which  said,  '■  Hast  thou  pro- 
claimed to  those  who  were  asleep  .? '  And  there  came 
from  the  cross  as  answer.    Yes''     How  far  below  the 

1  Svvete,  The  Akhmim  Fragment  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  St.  Peter, 
pp.  xliv-xlv. 


3l8  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

soberness  and  propriety  of  the  Gospels  does  such  a 
fiction  fall ! 

The  Synoptists  agree  that  the  women  found  the  tomb 
empty ;  the  body  of  Jesus  was  not  there  (Mark  xvi. 
5,  6;  Matt,  xxviii.  5,  6;  Luke  xxiv.  5,  6).  Matthew  and 
Luke  report  that  the  women  went  away  to  tell  the  dis- 
ciples what  they  had  experienced  (Matt,  xxviii.  8),  or 
that  they  went  away  and  actually  did  tell  the  eleven 
and  all  the  rest  (Luke  xxiv.  9).  The  original  of  Mark's 
Gospel  closes  with  the  statement  that  the  women  fled 
from  the  tomb,  and  in  their  terror  said  nothing  to  any 
one  (Mark  xvi.  8).  According  to  the  fourth  Gospel, 
Mary  Magdalene  did  not  enter  the  tomb,  but  seeing  the 
stone  rolled  away,  she  ran  and  told  Peter  and  John  that 
the  body  of  Jesus  had  been  removed  (John  xx.  2). 
Thereupon  Peter  and  John  ran  toward  the  tomb. 
When  John  reached  it  he  looked  in,  saw  the  linen  cloths 
lying,  but  did  not  enter  (John  xx.  4,  5).  Peter  came  up 
presently,  entered  the  tomb,  saw  the  linen  cloths  which 
John  had  seen,  and  the  face  napkin,  rolled  up,  lying 
apart  (xx.  6,  7).  Then  John  entered,  saw,  and  believed, 
—  that  is,  believed  that  Jesus  had  risen  (xx.  8).  Both 
then  returned  to  their  homes. 

The  inference  which  Mary  Magdalene  had  drawn 
from  the  fact  that  the  tomb  was  open,  was  not  correct. 
The  body  had  not  been  removed,  for  the  linen  cloths 
were  in  the  tomb,  and  the  napkin  was  rolled  up  and 
laid  by  itself.  The  condition  of  the  place  was  evidence 
to  John  that  Jesus  had  indeed  risen  from  the  dead. 


THE   RESURRECTION  AND  THE   RISEN   CHRIST       319 

We  have  seen  that  there  were  other  women  with 
Mary  Magdalene.  Accordmg  to  the  Synoptists,  —  who, 
however,  do  not  separate  Mary  Magdalene  from  the 
other  women, — those  who  came  to  the  tomb  had  a 
strange  experience,  quite  unlike  that  of  Peter  and  John. 
For,  having  entered  the  tomb,  they  saw  an  angel  sitting 
on  the  right  hand  (that  is,  their  right  hand  as  they 
entered  the  door,  and  presumably  where  the  body  of 
Jesus  had  lain),  and  this  angel  spoke  to  them.  He  told 
them  that  Jesus  was  risen,  that  they  should  go  and 
announce  to  His  disciples  that  He  would  precede  them 
into  Galilee,  and  that  according  to  His  word  they  should 
see  Him  there  (Mark  xvi.  6,  7).  In  Matthew,  the  mes- 
sage of  the  angel  is  substantially  the  same  as  in  Mark, 
though  here  the  angel  is  zvithoiit  the  tomb.  He,  how- 
ever, summons  the  women  to  enter  the  tomb  and  see 
the  place  where  Jesus  had  lain  (Matt,  xxviii.  6),  and  it 
may  be  supposed  that  they  followed  this  summons. 
The  one  notable  divergence  of  Matthew's  angelic  mes- 
sage from  Mark's  is  in  the  last  clause.  In  Mark,  the 
angel  refers  to  the  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  as 
being  in  accordance  with  His  (Jesus')  word,  while  in 
Matthew  it  rests  upon  the  assurance  of  the  angel  him- 
self, "  Lo,  I  have  told  you."  In  Luke,  the  message  of 
the  angels  is  somewhat  unique.  It  agrees  with  that  of 
Mark  and  Matthew  in  one  point,  namely,  that  Jesus  is 
not  in  the  tomb  but  is  risen.  The  rest  of  the  message 
is  a  reminder  of  what  Jesus  had  said  while  still  in  Gali- 
lee, His  announcement  of  betrayal,  crucifixion,  and  res- 


320  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

urrection  on  the  third  day  (Luke  xxiv.  6,  7).  The 
women  remember  these  wDrds  of  Jesus,  and  go  away  to 
the  disciples  (Luke  xxiv.  8,  9). 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  all  the  Synoptists  the  angel, 
or  in  Luke  the  two  angels,  simply  voice  what  the 
women  could  see  with  their  eyes,  or  what  they  could 
easily  remember  of  the  word  of  their  Master,  or  what 
they  might  infer  from  what  they  saw.  They  were 
seeking  Jesus  who  had  been  crucified,  and  they  could 
see  that  He  was  not  there  in  the  tomb.  They  might 
infer  that  He  had  risen,  as  readily  as  John  did  when  he 
saw  the  condition  of  the  tomb.  Then  what  more  nat- 
ural than  that  the  promise  which  Jesus  had  made  on  the 
last  evening  before  His  crucifixion  should  come  into  their 
minds  (Mark  xiv.  28),  and  that  they  should  look  forward 
to  a  meeting  with  Him  in  Galilee }  What  the  women 
learned  at  the  tomb,  and  what  John  learned,  was  indeed  a 
heavenly  message  —  no  less  heavenly  in  the  case  of  John, 
who  inferred  the  resurrection  from  the  condition  of  the 
tomb,  than  in  the  case  of  the  women,  with  whom  an  angel 
spoke.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  to  regard  the  Synoptic 
type  of  representation  as  designed  to  express  the  greatness 
and  gladness  of  the  truth  which  dawned  upon  the  minds 
of  the  women  as  they  contemplated  the  empty  tomb. 

The  Risen  Lord. 

Hts  Appearance  to  Several  Women. 
Both  John  and  Matthew  relate  that  the  women  had 
not  gone  far  from  the  tomb  before  they  saw  the  risen 


THE   RESURRECTION  AND  THE   RISEN  CHRIST       32 1 

Lord  Himself  —  in  John  it  is  Mary  Magdalene  who  saw 
Him,  in  Matthew  it  is  the  women  who  had  come  to  the 
tomb.  He  mentions  only  Mary  Magdalene  and  the 
other  Mary, — that  is,  Mary  the  mother  of  James  ;  but  to 
these  we  add  Salome  and  Joanna  from  Mark  and  Luke. 
If,  now,  Mary  Magdalene  left  the  other  women  when 
she  saw  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away  from  the  door  of 
the  tomb,  there  were  three  women  who  met  Jesus  some- 
where between  the  tomb  and  their  homes.  When  Jesus 
greeted  them,  they  recognized  Him,  clasped  His  feet, 
and  did  Him  reverence  (Matt,  xxviii.  9).  Jesus  quieted 
their  fears,  and  bade  them  tell  His  brethren  to  go  into 
Galilee,  where  they  should  see  Him  (Matt,  xxviii.  10). 
This  was  in  accord  with  the  word  which  He  had  spoken 
before  His  crucifixion  (Mark  xiv.  28 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  32). 

To  Mary  Magdalene. 

Mary  Magdalene  followed  Peter  and  John  back  to 
the  tomb,  and  when  they  returned  home,  she  remained 
behind  (John  xx.  11).  It  is  possible  that  they  had  left 
the  garden  before  she  arrived,  for  had  she  seen  John 
and  conversed  with  him,  she  could  hardly  have  remained 
in  so  hopeless  a  state  of  mind.  She  still  believed  that 
the  body  of  Jesus  had  been  taken  away  (John  xx.  13). 
Turning  from  the  tomb,  she  saw  a  man  whom  she  took 
to  be  the  gardener.  To  Him,  when  He  asked  why 
she  wept,  she  told  her  sorrow ;  and  then,  as  He  called 
her  by  name,  she  recognized  that  it  was  Jesus.  She 
sought  to  touch  Him,  perhaps  to  assure  herself  of  the 


322  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

reality  of  what  she  thought  she  saw ;  but  Jesus  re- 
strained her  with  the  mysterious  words,  "Touch  me 
not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  unto  the  Father  "  (John 
XX.  17).  He  had  allowed  the  other  women  to  clasp  His 
feet  (Matt,  xxviii.  9),  but  He  does  not  give  this  privilege 
to  Mary  Magdalene.  We  are  probably  to  find  the  rea- 
son of  this  in  her.  She  may  have  thought  that  the  old 
intercourse  was  to  be  renewed,  and  that  her  sorrowful 
heart  was  to  be  gladdened  by  the  fellowship  of  the 
visible  Lord.  Jesus  knew  that  this  was  not  to  be  the 
case,  and  that  Vv^hat  she  craved  she  would  not  receive 
until  He  had  ascended  to  the  Father.  Then  He  would 
send  to  His  disciples  that  other  Helper  who  would  fulfil 
their  joy  (John  xiv.  16).  The  message  to  Mary  was 
strikingly  unlike  that  which,  according  to  Matthew, 
Jesus  had  given  to  the  other  women.  She  is  to  go 
to  His  brethren  and  say  from  Him,  "  I  ascend  unto 
my  Father  and  your  Father,  and  my  God  and  your 
God"  (John  xx.  17),  while  the  others  were  to  say  that 
Jesus  would  precede  the  disciples  into  Galilee.  Yet 
both  sayings  were  for  encouragement,  one  by  the  pros- 
pect of  meeting  Jesus  again  in  the  homeland  of  Galilee, 
the  other  by  the  thought,  that,  though  Jesus  is  separated 
from  His  disciples,  they  together  with  Him  have  one 
God,  one  Father. 

To  the  Eminans  Disciples. 

A  third  appearance  of  Jesus  on  the  resurrection  day 
was  to  two  disciples,  one  of  whom  was  Cleopas,  as  they 


THE   RESURRECTION  AND  THE   RISEN  CHRIST      323 

journeyed  to  Emmaus,  a  village  about  eight  miles  north- 
west from  Jerusalem  (Luke  xxiv.  13-31).  These  disci- 
ples, like  Mary  Magdalene,  did  not  at  first  recognize 
Jesus.  He  found,  on  inquiry,  that  they  were  talking  of 
their  disappointment  because  Jesus  had  not  proved  to 
be  the  redeemer  of  Israel.  But  though  disappointed, 
there  is  something  akin  to  hope  in  their  hearts  by  reason 
of  what  the  women  had  reported,  who  were  early  at  the 
tomb,  this  report  being  partly  confirmed  by  a  subsequent 
visit  which  some  of  the  disciples  had  made  to  the  tomb. 
Then  Jesus  showed  at  length  from  the  Scriptures  that 
the  Messiah  should  enter  into  His  glory  through  suffer- 
ing. When  the  group  reached  Emmaus,  Cleopas  and 
his  fellow-disciple  urged  the  Stranger  to  stop  with  them. 
They  all  went  into  the  house,  sat  down  to  meat,  and 
when  Jesus,  after  giving  thanks,  broke  the  bread,  they 
recognized  Him,  and  immediately  He  vanished.  Their 
conviction  that  it  was  Jesus  was  strengthened  by  the 
impression  which  His  words  had  made  upon  their  hearts, 
and  which,  now  that  He  has  gone,  they  confess  one  to 
the  other  (Luke  xxiv.  32).  Straightway  the  two  went 
back  to  Jerusalem,  full  of  joy  at  what  they  had  seen. 

To  Simon. 

When  the  two  disciples  reached  the  city,  they  found  the 
eleven  and  others  gathered  together,  who  greeted  them 
with  the  joyful  words,  ''The  Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and 
hath  appeared  to  Simon"  (Luke  xxiv.  33,  34).  Of  this 
appearance  to  Simon,  we  have  no  further  trace  in  the 


324  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Gospels,  but  it  is  probably  to  be  identified  with  the 
appearance  of  which  Paul  speaks,  and  which  is  first  in 
his  list  of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  (i  Cor. 
XV.  5). 

This  utterance  of  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem  is  note- 
worthy. Their  faith  that  Jesus  is  risen  seems  to  rest  on 
His  appearance  to  Simon.  But  had  they  not  heard  of 
His  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other 
women  ?  Or  was  there  something  peculiarly  convincing 
in  His  appearance  to  Simon,  so  that  this  alone  should 
be  put  forward  ?  It  is  noticeable  that  this  appearance 
to  Simon,  which  according  to  Luke  seems  to  have  had 
so  great  an  effect  upon  the  disciples,  is  the  first  appear- 
ance of  the  risen  Saviour  of  which  Paul  makes  mention. 

To  Apostles  and  Other  Disciples. 

Yet  again  on  the  day  of  His  resurrection  did  Jesus 
appear  to  some  of  His  disciples.^  Both  John  and  Luke 
record  this  appearance,  the  former  with  greater  circum- 
stantiality than  the  latter  (John  xx.  19-23  ;  Luke  xxiv. 
36-43).  Both  agree  that  it  was  evening,  and  both  agree 
that  Jesus  sought  to  convince  the  disciples  of  His  iden- 
tity by  showing  the  marks  of  His  crucifixion.  Both 
also  agree  that  the  disciples  were  convinced  of  the 
presence  of  Jesus,  for  both  speak  of  their  gladness. 
Beyond  these  points,  the  matter  of   each  narrative  is 

1  Luke's  expression  the  eleven  (xxiv.  33),  like  Paul's  the  twelve  (i  Cor. 
XV.  5),  means  the  apostolic  circle,  and  is  consistent  with  John's  representa- 
tion that  only  ten  of  the  apostles  were  present  (John  xx.  24). 


THE   RESURRECTION   AND   THE   RISEN   CHRIST       325 

peculiar  to  itself.  Luke  says  that  the  disciples  were 
terrified,  supposing  that  they  beheld  a  spirit,  just  as 
was  the  case  when  Jesus  came  to  the  disciples  on  the 
lake  (Luke  xxiv.  37).  In  Luke,  also,  the  materialistic 
evidence  of  the  identity  of  Jesus  is  emphasized.  He  is 
represented  as  having  flesh  and  bones  (xxiv.  39)  and  as 
eating  a  piece  of  broiled  fish  (xxiv.  42).  Peculiar  to 
John  are  the  statements  that  Jesus  appeared  in  the 
room  though  the  doors  were  shut  (xx.  19);  that  He 
breathed  upon  the  disciples,  His  breath  upon  them 
symbolizing  the  impartation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (xx.  22), 
and  that  He  recognized  them  as  the  authoritative  con- 
tinuators  of  His  work  (xx.  23).  This  actual  impartation 
of  the  Spirit,  which  John  records,  is  said  to  be  in  con- 
flict with  Luke's  statement,^  where  the  Spirit  vs^  promised, 
but  is  not  to  be  received  until  Jesus  has  returned  to  the 
Father  (Luke  xxiv.  49).  But  is  that  necessarily  the 
case  }  The  act  of  Jesus,  according  to  John,  is  to  qualify 
His  disciples  to  forgive  or  retain  sins,  to  be  the  norm 
of  truth  in  the  earth,  to  represent  Jesus  as  the  revealer 
of  the  Father,  —  authority  to  be  the  incarnate  law  regard- 
ing holy  and  unholy.  But  this  is  certainly  different  from 
the  equipment  with  power  to  preach  the  Gospel,  which 
is  the  promise  in  Luke,  a  promise  confirmed  at  Pentecost. 

To  Disciples  a    Week  after  the  Resurrection. 
The  sixth  appearance  of  Jesus  was  separated  from  the 
first  five  by  an  interval  of  one  week  (John  xx.  26).     It 

1  E.g.,  Keim,  VI.  374. 


326  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

was  in  Jerusalem,  to  those  who  are  called  by  Jesus  His 
brethren  (John  xx.  17)  and  who  are  also  spoken  of  simply 
as  disciples  (xx.  19,  26).  If  the  representation  of  Luke 
(xxiv.  33)  is  allowed  an  influence  in  the  interpretation 
of  John  XX.  19,  then  we  have  no  ground  to  limit  the 
number  to  whom  Jesus  appeared,  to  the  eleven  apostles. 
On  this  occasion  also  Jesus  appeared  suddenly  in  a  room 
whose  doors  were  shut  (John  xx.  26).  The  appearance 
was  especially  on  account  of  Thomas,  who  had  not  been 
present  when  Jesus  appeared  to  the  disciples  the  week 
before.  They  had  told  him  of  seeing  the  Lord,  but  he 
declared  that  he  could  not  believe  without  certain  mate- 
rial tests  (John  xx.  25).  When  Jesus  appeared,  He 
offered  Thomas  the  very  proofs  which  he  had  said  he 
must  have.  It  is  not  said  that  Thomas  handled  Jesus, 
when  summoned  to  do  so,  but  he  was  convinced  that 
Jesus  stood  before  him  (John  xx.  27). 

To  Seven  by  the  Lake  of  Galilee. 

A  seventh  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  is  described 
in  the  Supplement  to  John's  Gospel  (John  xxi.  1-22). 
The  time  of  it  is  not  definitely  fixed,  nor  its  order  in  the 
list  of  appearances,  as  contained  in  all  the  sources.  It 
may  have  been  the  seventh  of  the  recorded  appearances, 
and  it  may  not.  There  were  seven  disciples  together, 
and  the  names  of  five  of  these  are  given  —  Peter, 
Thomas,  Nathanael,  James,  and  John  ;  the  other  two  are 
unknown.  They  had  spent  the  night  fishing,  but  with- 
out success.     In  the  morning  Jesus  stood  on  the  beach 


THE  RESURRECTION  AND  THE    RISEN  CHRIST      327 

and  talked  with  them  from  a  distance.     They  did   not 
recognize  Him,  but  became  convinced  of  His  identity 
by  the  wonderful  draught  of  fish  which  they  took  when 
they  cast  the  net  as  He  directed  (John  xxi.  7).     When 
they  reached  the  shore,  they  found  a  fire  on  which  fish 
were  cooking,  and  there  was  also  bread  near  by.     It  is, 
of  course,  implied  that  Jesus  had  prepared  these  things. 
But  possibly  the  fish  which  were  being  cooked  were  not 
enough  for  all  the  seven    disciples,  and  therefore  they 
were  bidden  to  bring  some  of  those  which  they  had  just 
caught.     When  this  was  done,  Jesus  served  the  seven 
men  with  bread  and  fish.     Then  after  the  conversation 
with    Peter,  in  which  Jesus  drew  from  His  apostle  a 
thrice-repeated  confession  of  love,  in  allusion  probably 
to  the  three  denials,  and  in  which  also  He  three  times 
laid  upon  His  apostle  the  obligation  to  feed  His  lambs 
and  tend    His  sheep, —after  this,  Jesus  moved    away 
from  the  scene  of  their  breakfast,  asking  Peter  to  follow. 
Peter  saw  that  John  also  was  following,  and  asked  Jesus 
what  should  be  to  him.     The  answer  of  Jesus,    "  If  I 
will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,"  was  understood  by  some 
of  the  disciples  to  mean  that  John  should  not  die  (John 
xxi.  23).    But  when  this  supplemental  twenty-first  chap- 
ter was  added  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  John  seems  to  have 
been  dead. 

Whither  Jesus  went  at  this  time,  when  He  summoned 
Peter  to  follow  Him ;  what  His  purpose  was,  and  how 
He  at  last  departed  from  Peter,  are  questions  which 
must  remain  unanswered. 


328  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

To  the  Apostles  on  a  Mountain  m  Galilee. 

Another  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  is  recorded 
by  Matthew  (xxviii.  16-20).  He  says  that  Jesus  had 
appointed  a  particular  mountain,  where  He  would  meet 
His  disciples  (xxviii.  16).  Here  He  appeared  to  the 
eleven  apostles,  and  probably  at  the  same  time  to  the 
large  company  of  more  than  five  hundred  believers, 
which  is  reported  only  by  Paul  (i  Cor.  xv.  6).  This  is 
probable,  for,  first,  it  was  doubtless  in  Galilee  only  that 
so  large  a  number  of  disciples  could  be  found ;  second, 
there  are  only  two  appearances  of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  and 
the  scene  on  the  mountain  is  the  only  one  of  these  with 
which  the  five  hundred  disciples  can  be  associated ;  and, 
third,  even  Matthew's  narrative  implies  the  presence  of 
others  besides  the  eleven  apostles,  for  he  says  that  some 
doubted,  that  is,  doubted  whether  Jesus  who  had  been 
crucified  was  really  there.  But  it  is  impossible  to  think 
that  any  of  the  eleven  doubted,  for  even  Thomas  had 
been  convinced  that  Jesus  had  risen.  For  these  reasons 
we  hold  it  probable  that  when  Jesus  appeared  on  the 
mountain  in  Galilee,  He  appeared  not  to  the  eleven 
alone,  but  practically  to  the  entire  company  of  Galilean 
disciples.  To  all  these,  accordingly,  the  commission 
was  given  to  go  and  disciple  all  nations  (Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  20). 

If  we  are  justified  in  associating  the  appearance  to 
five  hundred  with  the  appearance  to  the  apostles  on  a 
mountain  in  Galilee,  then  we  have  at  least  a  partial 
explanation   of   that  otherwise  unexplained  fact,   that, 


THE   RESURRECTION   AND  THE   RISEN   CHRIST      329 

after  Jesus  had  told  His  disciples  that  He  would  go 
before  them  into  Galilee,  and  that  there  they  should  see 
Him  (Mark  xiv.  28 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  32),  not  referring  to 
appearances  to  them  elsewhere,  and  after  the  angel  at 
the  tomb  on  the  morning  of  the  resurrection  had  sent 
word  to  the  disciples  that  they  should  see  Jesus  in  Gali- 
lee (Mark  xvi.  7;  Matt,  xxviii.  7),  He  yet  appeared  at 
least  six  times  in  and  near  Jerusalem  before  He  appeared 
in  Galilee  at  all,  and  then  appeared  there  but  twice. 
But  those  appearances  in  Jerusalem  were  to  individuals, 
while  that  on  the  Galilean  mountain  was,  as  it  were,  to 
the  entire  Church.  It  had,  therefore,  unique  significance, 
and  in  view  of  this  we  can  understand  the  unique  refer- 
ence of  Jesus  to  His  appearance  to  His  disciples  in 
GaHlee. 

To  Disciples  on  Olivet. 

The  ninth  and  last  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord, 
exclusive  of  the  later  appearance  to  Paul,  and  also  of 
an  appearance  to  James,  which  Paul  mentions  (i  Cor. 
XV.  7),  but  about  which  we  know  nothing,  was  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  or,  more  exactly,  in  Jerusalem  and  on 
the  Mount  of  Olives  (Luke  xxiv.  50-53).  According  to 
Luke  in  the  Acts,  this  appearance  was  to  the  apostles, 
and  the  time  was  forty  days  after  the  resurrection  (Acts 
i.  2,  3).  We  may  infer  from  Luke  that  they  had  returned 
from  Galilee  in  order  to  receive  in  Jerusalem  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  promise  which  Jesus  had  made  (Luke  xxiv. 
49;    Acts  i.  4).     Here,  then,  they  beheld  Him  for  the 


330  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

last  time.  In  His  parting  words,  He  spoke  of  their 
equipment  with  the  Spirit  for  service,  and  said  that  they 
should  be  His  witnesses  to  all  men  (Acts  i.  8).  Then, 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  He  blessed  them,  parted  from 
them,  and  a  cloud  received  Him  out  of  their  sight  (Luke 
xxiv.  50 ;  Acts  i.  9). 

The  Objective  Reality  of  the  Resurrection. 

The  narrative  of  the  evangelists  treats  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  as  a  historical  fact,  demonstrable  to  the 
senses.  The  tomb  was  found  empty,  but  in  an  orderly 
condition,  the  napkin  which  had  been  around  the  head 
of  Jesus  being  folded  and  lying  by  itself.  Not  less  than 
six  disciples  visited  the  tomb  early  in  the  morning  of 
the  day  in  which  Jesus  arose.  Certain  women  clasped 
the  feet  of  the  Lord.  He  proved  His  identity  by  point- 
ing to  hands,  feet,  and  side,  all  of  v/hich  had  been 
pierced.  He  ate  a  piece  of  broiled  fish.  He  gave  the 
seven  disciples  a  miraculous  draught  of  fish.  He  seems 
to  have  kindled  a  fire  on  the  beach,  and  to  have  partially 
prepared  a  breakfast  for  His  disciples.  He  was  recog- 
nized on  one  occasion  by  His  voice,  and  again  by  His 
breaking  of  bread.  It  is  certain  that  the  evangelists 
were  convinced  that  the  risen  Lord  was  seen  with  eyes 
of  flesh  and  heard  with  ears  of  flesh. 

The  force  of  these  facts  is  not  destroyed  by  the  other 
class  of  facts  which  indicate  that  the  body  of  the  risen 
Lord  was  no  longer  wholly  subject,  if  subject  at  all,  to 
the  known  laws  of   matter.     To  this  class  belong  the 


THE   RESURRECTION  AND   THE   RISEN   CHRIST      33 1 

sudden  vanishing  of  Jesus  from  the  house  in  Emmaus, 
where  He  had  broken  bread  for  the  two  disciples ;  His 
appearance  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples  on  two  occa- 
sions when  the  doors  were  locked ;  and  His  separation 
from  the  disciples  on  Olivet.  These  facts  seem  to  prove 
that  the  body  of  the  risen  Jesus  was  not  in  every  respect 
the  same  body  which  had  been  laid  in  the  tomb,  but 
they  do  not  argue  against  its  objective  reality.  It  had 
been  sown  a  natural  body  ;  it  seems  to  have  been  raised, 
in  some  measure,  at  least,  a  spiritual  body  (i  Cor.  xv.  44). 
The  theory  that  the  disciples  had  a  vision  of  Jesus, 
but  that  He  was  not  objectively  present,  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  narrative.  This  declares  that  the  grave  of 
Jesus  was  found  empty  on  the  morning  of  the  third 
day.  Therefore,  the  body  must  either  have  risen,  or 
have  been  removed  with  intent  to  deceive ;  but  this 
latter  alternative  is  simply  impossible.  The  enemies 
cannot  have  taken  the  body  away,  for  in  that  case  they 
would  have  been  able  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the  disciples 
when  they  came  forward,  after  Pentecost,  preaching  a 
risen  Jesus,  and  they  would  certainly  have  done  so. 
Nor  can  the  disciples  have  removed  the  body  of  Jesus ; 
for  (i)  Matthew  says  that  the  tomb  was  guarded  (xxvii. 
65,  66)\  (2)  it  is  incredible  that  the  disciples,  who  did 
not  fully  believe  that  their  Master  would  rise  from  the 
dead,  should  at  once,  while  smitten  and  despondent, 
have  conceived  the  colossal  fraud  of  stealing  the  body 
and  deceiving  the  world;  and  (3)  the  narrative  shows 
us  the  disciples  changed  from  a  state  of  sorrow  to  one 


332  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

of  joy,  from  a  state  of  weakness  to  one  of  strength, 
from  being  scattered  to  being  together  as  a  world-con- 
quering power ;  and  this  change  cannot  be  traced  to  a 
vision  which  itself  rested  on  a  lie.  But  if  Jesus  actually 
rose  from  the  grave  to  a  new  and  immortal  life,  it  is  far 
easier  to  suppose  that  He  manifested  Himself  sensibly 
to  His  disciples,  as  He  had  promised  to  do  (Mark  xiv. 
28 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  32),  and  as  the  evangelists  affirm  that 
He  did,  than  to  suppose  that  He  returned  at  once  to 
God,  and  that  a  miraculous  vision  was  given  to  the 
disciples. 

The  Ascension. 

Luke  alone  refers  to  the  ascension,  and  that  not  in 
his  Gospel,  but  in  the  Acts  (Acts  i.  9).^  According  to 
the  passage  in  Acts,  Jesus  was  seen,  apparently  by  eyes 
of  flesh,  ascending  into  the  air,  and  at  last  was  hidden 
by  a  cloud.  In  his  Gospel,  Luke  simply  says  that 
Jesus  was  separated  from  His  disciples,  but  makes  no 
reference  to  His  return  to  heaven.  This  separation 
from  His  disciples  we  should  understand  as  a  simple 
vanishing  from  them,  like  that  of  Luke  xxiv.  31.  Mat- 
thew closes  his  Gospel  with  the  scene  in  Galilee  where 
Jesus  was  surrounded  by  a  great  number  of  disciples, 
and  with  the  promise  that  He  would  be  with  them  to 
the  end  of  the  age.  How  Mark  concluded  his  Gospel 
we  do  not  know.     The  present  conclusion,  xvi.  9-20,  is 

1  The  leading  text-critics  omit  from  Luke  xxiv,  51  the  words,  "and  was 
carried  up  into  heaven." 


THE   RESURRECTION   AND  THE   RISEN   CHRIST      333 

almost  unanimously  admitted  to  be  an  interpolation. 
We  cannot  say,  therefore,  whether  the  second  evange- 
list made  any  allusion  to  the  ascension. 

The  Appendix  to  the  Gospel  of  John  gives  us,  as  the 
last  glimpse  of  the  risen  Lord,  the  scene  on  the  lake 
shore,  where,  after  the  breakfast,  Jesus  moved  away,  fol- 
lowed by  Peter  and  John.  Whither  He  went,  we  are  not 
told,  or  how  He  was  at  last  separated  from  the  disciples. 
But  while  the  Gospels  do  not  refer  to  the  ascension 
of  Jesus  as  an  accomplished  fact,  John  reports  that 
Jesus  spoke  of  His  ascension  as  something  about  to  be 
realized  (John  xx.  17).  Thus  we  have,  in  unquestionable 
words  of  Jesus  Himself,  a  distinct  reference  to  His 
ascension  to  the  Father.  This,  therefore,  is  confirma- 
tory of  Luke's  narrative  in  Acts,  though  of  course  it 
has  no  bearing  on  the  form  in  which  the  truth  of  the 
ascension  is  there  presented. 

The  ascension  in  Acts  is  not  presented  as  something 
miraculous.  Jesus  now  had  a  body  which  was  not  con- 
ditioned by  laws  of  matter  as  known  to  us.  He  could 
appear  among  the  disciples  when  the  doors  were  locked. 
He  could  vanish  from  sight  instantly.  That  such  a 
spiritual  body  should  move  heavenward  at  will,  is  as 
natural,  as  far  as  we  can  say,  as  that  a  material  body 
should  cling  to  the  earth. 

While,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  very  little  said  in 
the  New  Testament  about  the  ascension,  and  that  little 
not  by  an  eye-witness,  the  belief  that  Jesus,  shortly 
after  His  resurrection,  returned  to  the  Father  and  sat 


334  THE   STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

down  at  His  right  hand  in  glory,  is  everywhere  involved 
and  not  infrequently  expressed.^ 

Nothing  was  more  certain  to  the  faith  of  the  apostolic 
age,  and  nothing  should  be  more  certain  to  our  faith 
after  eighteen  centuries  of  Christian  experience,  than 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  is  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
exalted  far  above  all  rule,  and  authority,  and  power,  and 
dominion,  and  above  every  name  that  is  named,  not 
only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come. 

1  E.g.,  Rom.  viii.  34 ;  Col.  iii.  i  ;   Rev,  iii.  21  ;  xxii.  i. 


2lnto  %m  be  glorg  tfjrougi)  all  ages. 


APPENDIX 

THE   SOURCES   OF  THE   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

I.    Criticism  of  the  Sources 

A  SCIENTIFIC  study  of  the  life  of  Jesus  presupposes 
a  critical  examination  of  the  sources  which  furnish  us 
information  of  that  life.  Only  by  such  investigation 
can  one  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  view  of  the  historical 
facts.  For  these  sources  are  as  manifestly  human  as 
their  message  is  divine.  Their  sacredness  is  in  what 
they  report,  not  in  the  way  they  report.  It  is  far  from 
the  spirit  of  the  writers  to  claim  infallibility  for  their 
narratives.  The  utmost  that  they  claim  is,  in  one 
case,  to  be  an  honest  witness  of  the  facts  recorded 
(John  i.  14;  xix.  35),  and  in  another  case,  to  be  a 
careful  and  thorough  historian,  who  had  access  to  full 
sources  of  information  (Luke  i.  1-4).  The  first  and 
second  Gospels,  anonymous  like  the  others,  make  no 
claim  whatever  for  themselves,  but  they  were  doubtless 
originally  put  into  circulation  by  men  who  believed  and 
claimed  that  they  had  reliable  information  in  regard  to 
the  life  and  teaching  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  that  they 
had   faithfully  presented  it   in    these  narratives.       No 

335 


336  APPENDIX 

other  claims  than  these  are  in  any  wise  involved.  If 
these  writers  were  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  Christ's 
life,  and  were  honest  witnesses,  that  is  all  we  could 
expect,  and  all  that  we  need.  They  have  sometimes 
been  wounded  in  the  house  of  their  friends,  by  the  fact 
that  these  friends  have  claimed  for  them  what  they  do 
not  claim  for  themselves,  and  what  their  narratives  do 
not  warrant.  Criticism  of  the  sources  is  not  only  justi- 
fied by  the  absence  of  any  claims  to  exemption  from 
criticism  on  the  part  of  the  authors  of  the  Gospels,  but 
it  is  plainly  required  by  numerous  phenomena  in  the 
writings  themselves.  Thus,  for  example,  the  order  of 
events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  is  not  always  the  same  in  the 
different  Gospels,  and  the  student  must  decide  which 
order  is  the  true  one.  Peter's  denial  of  his  Lord  pre- 
ceded the  trial  of  Jesus  by  the  Sanhedrin,  according  to 
Luke  (xxii.  54-62,  66-71),  but  according  to  Mark,  it 
followed  that  trial  (xiv.  53-65,  66-72).  In  Luke,  the 
spices  and  ointment  are  prepared  by  the  women  before 
the  Sabbath  (xxiii.  56),  but  in  Mark  after  the  Sabbath 
(xvi.  i).  Many  similar  examples  might  be  given. 
Again,  the  material  which  constitutes  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  in  the  first  Gospel  is  partly  found  in  Luke, 
but  is  there  scattered  over  a  long  period,  and  the  words 
were  spoken  on  a  variety  of  occasions.  Or  to  take  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  general.  We  find  that  they  are  often 
differently  reported  by  the  different  writers,  and  while 
the  differences  are,  as  a  rule,  slight,  they  are  sometimes 
considerable;  but  whether  slight  or  considerable,  they 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  337 

all  are  important  in  documents  so  immeasurably  pre- 
cious as  are  the  Gospels,  and  demand  scientific  investi- 
gation. We  have  an  even  more  striking  illustration  of 
the  need  of  criticism  when  we  pass  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  to  John.  This  transition  discloses  wide  and 
varied  differences,  both  in  regard  to  the  facts  of  the  life 
of  Jesus,  and  in  regard  to  His  words. 

Such,  briefly,  are  some  of  the  phenomena  in  the  Gos- 
pels which  show  the  need  of  subjecting  them  to  careful 
investigation,  if  they  are  to  be  used  in  a  scientific 
attempt  to  estabhsh  the  facts  of  Jesus'  life.  This  criti- 
cal study  of  the  sources,  carried  on  now  for  more  than 
a  century,  has  been  justified  by  its  fruits,  and  needs  no 
other  defence  than  these.  Like  the  recently  discovered 
Rontgen  rays,  by  which  the  invisible  structure  of  differ- 
ent substances  can  be  photographed,  criticism  has  to 
some  extent  discovered  the  inner  structure,  origin,  and 
interrelation  of  the  Gospels,  which  had  hitherto  been  as 
a  sealed  book.  It  should  be  honored  for  what  it  has 
done,  and  cultivated  for  what  remains  to  be  done.  It 
is  not  a  foe,  but  a  friend,  to  the  truth,  and  so  to  intelli- 
gent faith. 

2.  The  Synoptic  Gospels 

The  Literary  Problem. 

A  comparative  analysis  of  the  Synoptic  ^  Gospels 
reveals  the  twofold  fact  that  in  a  multitude  of  details 
they  are  remarkably  alike,  and  in  a  multitude  of  details 

1  So  called  by  Griesbach  (ti8i2),  because  their  family  resemblance 
makes  it  possible  to  view  them  together. 
Z 


338  APPENDIX 

they  are  remarkably  unlike.  The  correspondence 
amounts  in  some  cases  to  identity,  and  the  disagree- 
ment in  some  cases  amounts  to  contradiction.  In  many 
cases,  also,  where  the  narratives  are  plainly  dealing 
with  the  same  event  or  saying  of  Jesus,  the  reports  are 
neither  identical  nor  contradictory,  but  simply  different 
from  each  other.  Thus,  to  illustrate  the  last  phenome- 
non first,  each  of  the  evangelists  has  his  own  peculiar 
version  of  the  words  uttered  by  the  disciples  when  they 
feared  their  boat  was  about  to  sink  in  Lake  Galilee. 
"  Teacher,  is  it  nothing  to  thee  that  we  perish }  "  says 
the  second  Gospel,  with  an  accent  of  reproach.  "  Lord 
save  :  we  perish  !  "  is  the  urgent  prayer  of  the  disciples 
according  to  Matthew.  In  the  third  Gospel  the  cry  is 
rather  one  of  despair :  "  Master,  Master,  we  perish  !  " 
(Mark  iv.  38  ;  Matt.  viii.  25  ;  Luke  viii.  24).  These  ver- 
sions are  quite  different,  but  not  contradictory.  It  is 
as  easy  to  hold  them  all  to  be  historical  as  to  hold  the 
historicity  of  either  one. 

Frequently,  also,  the  difference  between  the  three  nar- 
ratives is  verbal  only,  each  giving  the  same  thought. 
Thus  all  the  Synoptists  represent  Jesus  as  saying  that 
it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven;  but  each  one  has  his  own  peculiar  Greek 
word  for  ej/e,  and  one  differs  from  the  other  two  in  his 
word  for  needle  (Mark  x.  25  ;  Matt.  xix.  24;  Luke  xviii. 
25).  Sometimes  the  differences  of  this  class  may  have 
a  literary  or  even  historical  interest,  as  in  the  narratives 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  339 

of  feeding  five  thousand  and  four  thousand  people, 
where  the  same  word  for  basket  is  used  by  the  four 
writers  who  describe  the  first  miracle  (Mark,  vi.  43 ; 
Matt.  xiv.  20;  Luke  ix.  17;  John  vi.  13),  and  a  differ- 
ent word  is  used  by  the  two  who  recount  the  second 
miracle  (Mark  viii.  8  ;  Matt.  xv.  37).  Here  the  two 
different  words  may  point  to  different  localities,  and  so 
the  difference  may  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
question  whether  these  two  narratives  do  really  concern 
two  different  works  of  our  Lord,  or  are  simply  different 
versions  of  one  and  the  same  event.  But  in  many 
cases  these  verbal  differences  have  no  further  value 
than  to  remind  us  that  between  the  Aramaic  words  of 
Jesus  and  our  Greek  reproduction  of  them,  also  in  the 
Greek  reproduction  itself,  there  was  liberty  in  the 
choice  of  words ;  and  that  the  same  liberty  was  exer- 
cised in  the  narrative  portions  of  the  Gospels,  whether 
in  the  translation  of  these  from  the  Aramaic,  if  they 
ever  existed  in  the  Aramaic  in  a  written  form,  or  in  the 
oral  and  written  moulding  which  they  underwent  before 
taking  final  shape  in  our  canonical  Gospels. 

It  was  said  above  that  the  correspondences  between 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  amount  in  some  cases  to  identity. 
This  is  true  both  of  the  words  of  Jesus  and  of  the  nar- 
rative itself,  but  as  might  have  been  expected,  is  more 
extensive  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  Jesus,  we  have  absolute  agreement  in  all  three 
Gospels  through  eigJit  words  (Mark  viii.  35  ;  Matt.  xvi. 
25  ;  Lukeix.  24),  but  there  are  not  a  half-dozen  instances 


340  APPENDIX 

where  absolute  agreement  is  found  through  five  con- 
secutive words. ^  The  identity  reaches  through  fifteeji 
words  in  the  case  of  one  Old  Testament  quotation  com- 
mon to  all  the  Synoptists  (Mark  xii.  36 ;  Matt.  xxii.  44 ; 
Luke  XX.  42,  43).  In  the  narrative  part  of  the  Gospel, 
absolute  verbal  identity,  including  the  order  of  the 
words  in  the  sentence,  does  not  extend,  so  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  find,  beyond  tivelve  consecutive  words 
(Mark  vi.  41 ;  Matt.  xiv.  19;  Luke  ix.  16);  and  pas- 
sages are  very  rare  where  verbal  identity  runs  through 
one-half  or  even  one-quarter  of  this  number  of  words. 
If  we  take  but  tivo  of  the  three  Gospels,  we  find  the 
identical  passages  somewhat  longer  and  more  frequent. 
The  longest  passage  in  which  two  evangelists  perfectly 
agree  is  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  where  there  is 
identity  through  twenty-six  words  (Matt.  vi.  24;  Luke 
xvi.  13).  There  are  two  other  cases  where  the  absolute 
agreement  reaches  through  more  than  twenty  words. 
But  there  are  very  few  passages  in  any  two  of  the 
Synoptists  where,  even  in  the  report  of  what  Jesus  said, 
there  is  agreement  through  six  or  eight  words.  The 
longest  is  in  the  report  of  the  Baptist's  sermon  (Matt. 
iii.  7-1^;  Luke  iii.  7-9),  where  there  is  absolute  identity 
through  thirty-seven  words.  There  are,  however,  very 
few  passages  in  any  two  of  the  Synoptists  where  the 
perfect  agreement  reaches  one-half  or  one-quarter  of 
this  extent.     But  it  is  a  fact  requiring  explanation  that 

1  See  the  Greek  text  in  Huck's  Synapse  der  drei  ersien  Evangelien,  1892, 
or  in  the  Synopticon  of  W.  G.  Rushbrooke. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  34 1 

we  have  complete  verbal  agreement  even  in  such  a 
measure.  When,  however,  we  set  up  a  less  exalted 
standard,  and  mquire  after  passages  common  to  all  the 
Synoptists  which  show  close  verbal  agreement,  the  num- 
ber of  passages  found  is  large.  And  there  are  all  de- 
grees of  agreement,  from  the  very  remote  to  the  very 
close.  In  the  matter  common  to  all  the  Synoptists,  the 
verbal  relationship  between  the  first  and  second  Gospels 
is,  as  a  rule,  closer  than  between  either  of  these  and 
the  third. 

But,  as  has  been  said,  the  comparative  analysis  of 
the  Gospels  reveals  a  dissonance  by  the  side  of  the 
agreement,  and  this  dissonance  amounts  in  some 
instances  to  contradiction.  Thus,  in  the  second  Gos- 
pel, the  twelve  disciples  when  sent  out  on  their  first 
mission  are  allowed  to  take  a  staff,  while  in  the  first 
and  third  they  are  not  allowed  to  take  one  (Mark  vi. 
8;  Matt  x.  10;  Luke  ix.  3).  Again,  according  to 
the  second  Gospel,  Jairus  tells  Jesus  that  his  little 
daughter  is  at  the  point  of  death,  while  according  to 
the  first  Gospel  he  says  she  is  already  dead  (Mark  v. 
23;  Matt.  ix.  18).  Once  more,  Matthew  tells  us  that 
the  centurion  of  Capernaum,  who  desired  that  Jesus 
should  heal  his  servant,  came  to  Jesus  in  person,  while 
according  to  Luke  he  did  not  come  in  person,  but 
sent  messengers  (Matt.  viii.  5-13;  Luke  vii.  i-io). 
There  are  other  cases  as  decided  as  these,  though  the 
number  is  small,  and  then  there  are  all  degrees  of 
difference  shading  off   to   zero.     These   are   the  phe- 


342  APPENDIX 

nomena   that '  constitute   the    literary    problem    in    the 
Synoptic  Gospels. 

Pi'esc7it  State  of  the  Discussion. 

This  problem  is  not  yet  solved,  though  it  has  prob- 
ably received  more  attention  than  any  other  problem 
to  be  found  in  the  history  of  literature.  The  labors 
of  the  past  have  not  been  fruitless.  Much  has  been 
accomplished  both  negatively  and  positively,  and  yet 
there  is  still  a  great  diversity  of  views  on  various  aspects 
of  the  problem.  A  German  writer  has  recently  said^ 
that  we  are  further  than  ever  from  agreement  even  in  the 
most  fundamental  points,  while  an  eminent  English 
scholar  is  hopeful  that  a  final  solution  will  be  reached 
early  in  the  approaching  century. ^  The  latest  and 
most  exhaustive  writer  on  New  Testament  Introduction^ 
has  taken  the  ground  that  Mark  depended  upon  Mat- 
thew, not  upon  our  Greek  Matthew,  but  upon  the 
Aramaic  Gospel  in  substantial  agreement  with  it.  It  is 
incredible,  he  says,  that  a  Gospel  for  the  Jews  of  Pales- 
tine—  the  traditional  view  of  Matthew's  Gospel — was 
dependent  upon  a  writing  for  Gentile  Christians  outside 
of  Palestine  —  the  traditional  view  of  Mark's  Gospel. 
He  thinks  the  greater  originality  is  on  the  side  of  Mat- 
thew, while  others  hold  that  the  greater  originality  of 


1  J.  Weiss  in  the  Theologische  Rundschau,  April,  1 899. 

2  Dr.  Sanday  in  S??iitk^s  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Article  Gospels,  1893. 

^  Zahn,  Einleitung  in  das  N'.  T. ,  Zweiter  Band,  1899;   Comp.  Hols- 
ten,  Die  synoptischen  Evangelien,  1885. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  343 

Mark  has  been  triumphantly  vindicated.^  Holtzmann 
admits  that  '*it  is  still  a  burning  question  whether  we 
have  the  primitive  representation  and  the  root  of  the 
other  Synoptic  texts  in  Matthew  or  in  Mark."^  This 
means  that  the  interdependence  between  Mark  and 
Matthew  (or  the  Logia,  a  document  which  many  think 
to  have  been  the  basis  of  our  Matthew,  though  Zahn 
speaks  of  it  as  mythical)  is  inconclusive.  Holtzmann 
also  says  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  independent.  But  if  the  relation  of  Mark  to 
Matthew  is  still  a  burning  question,  it  can  scarcely  be 
affirmed  that  the  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark  is  set- 
tled. The  question  of  Luke's  relation  to  Matthew  is 
still  wholly  undecided.  Some  say  there  is  no  direct 
connection  between  them,^  others  that  Luke  borrowed 
from  Matthew,*  and  others  that  Matthew  depended 
upon  Luke.^ 

Wright^  seeks  to  explain  the  various  phenomena  of 
our  Synoptists  by  the  hypothesis  that  they  were  cate- 
chists,  who  represent  three  cycles  of  the  oral  Gospel. 
Hence  his  explanation  does  away  with  all  dependence 
of  our  canonical  writers  upon  each  other,  and  does  not 

1  E.g.  Sanday,  in  the  Article  mentioned  above. 

2  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  1886. 

3  E.g.  Rogers,  The  Life  and  Teachings  of/estts,  1 894;  Zshn,  Einleitung 
in  das  N.  T.,  1899. 

*  E.g.  Schlager  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1896. 

^  E.g.  Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchristenthum ;  J.  Weiss  in  Meyer's  Kom' 
nientar. 

^'  The  Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels,  1890. 


344 


APPENDIX 


presuppose  any  documentary  source,  except  for  the 
history  of  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus  and  of  John 
the  Baptist.  And  Salmon  ^  thinks  we  can  assert  with 
confidence  that  the  sayings  which  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  in  common  were  not  drawn  from  any  documentary 
record  containing  only  our  Lord's  discourses  (the  favor- 
ite view  in  Germany),  but  must  have  reached  the  authors 
as  independent  fragments  of  an  oral  tradition.  Mar- 
shall,2  Qn  the  other  hand,  finds  the  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem in  a  primitive  Aramaic  Gospel  translated  into 
Greek  by  the  different  evangelists.  But  this  view  is 
now  vigorously  opposed  by  Dalman,^  who  holds  that  we 
have  no  proof  of  the  existence  of  an  Aramaic  Gospel. 
Thus  it  appears  that  we  cannot  yet  speak  of  a  consen- 
sus of  scholarship  on  the  solution  of  the  Synoptic  prob- 
lem. The  popular  theory  of  to-day  may  be  set  aside 
to-morrow,  and  the  satisfactory  solution,  if  such  ever 
be  attained,  may  prove  quite  unlike  any  one  of  the 
solutions  hitherto  proposed. 

Probable  Elements  in  the  Solution. 
The   general  view  of  the   Synoptic   problem,  which 
was  presented  in  outline  in  the  first  edition  of  this  book, 

1  A  Historical  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Books  of  the  N.  1 .,  2d 
ed.,  1 886.     Compare  also  V.  H.  Stanton  in  Expositor,  1893. 

Among  eminent  advocates  of  the  oral  theory,  mention  may  be  made 
here  of  Godet,  Expositor,  1889,  and  Westcott,  Introduction  to  the  Gospels, 
6th  ed.,  1 88 1. 

2  See  articles  in  Expositor,  1891,  Vols,  III,  IV.  Comp.  Alfred  Resch, 
Agrapha,  1889. 

3  Die  Wortejesu,  1898. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  345 

still  appears  to  me  more  satisfactory  than  any  other. 
I  therefore  leave  it  essentially  unchanged. 

The  first  element  in  the  solution  of  the  problem  is 
the  recognition  of  tJie  vtutical  mdepeiidence  of  our  Synop- 
tic Gospels.  This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  analy- 
sis of  the  text ;  it  must,  of  course,  rest  wholly  upon  this. 
Yet  it  receives  confirmation  from  the  fact  that  it  helps 
us  to  give  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  three  Gospels.  This  will  be  illus- 
trated after  the  question  of  mutual  independence  has 
been  discussed.  By  the  mutual  independence  of  the 
Gospels,  we  mean  that  neither  of  the  three  writers  had 
a  copy  of  both  or  of  either  of  the  other  Gospels  before 
him  as  he  wrote,  or  in  his  memory. 

This  independence  is  admitted  by  many  scholars  in 
the  case  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  those  who  think 
that  one  of  these  evangelists  was  acquainted  with  the 
writing  of  the  other  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  side  on 
which  dependence  is  found.  Therefore,  in  this  brief 
discussion  of  the  Synoptic  problem,  we  need  not  give 
further  attention  to  the  interrelation  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  We  will  consider,  in  the  first  place  Luke's  inde- 
pendence of  Mark,  for  it  is  now  generally  admitted, 
though  denied  by  some  earlier  writers,^  that  if  either 
was  dependent  upon  the  other,  the  dependent  one  was 
Luke,  and  not  Mark.  What,  now,  are  the  principal  facts 
in  the  case .-'  It  may  be  noticed  at  the  outset  that  Luke 
has  not  less  than  thirty  passages  regarding  the  public 

1  So,  e.g.  Bleek,  Einleitung,  1875,  P-  290. 


346  APPENDIX 

ministry  of  Jesus,  each  of  considerable  length,  that  are 
not  found  in  Mark.  These  include  miracles,  parables, 
and  narratives  of  events  that  belong  to  a  large  part  of 
the  public  life  of  Jesus.  This  peculiar  matter  would 
make  a  book  almost  half  as  long  as  the  second  Gospel. 
It  is  plain,  then,  that  Luke  had  copious  sources  entirely 
apart  from  Mark.  But  what  of  the  matter  which  they 
have  in  common  ?  There  are  five  short  sections  which 
they  have  as  their  peculiar  property,^  and  two  sec- 
tions in  which  they  both  give  much  fuller  information 
regarding  particular  events  than  does  Matthew  (Mark 
v.  1-20;  Luke  viii.  26-39;  Mark  v.  21-43;  Luke  viii. 
46-56).  Of  these  seven  passages,  only  two  are  favor- 
able to  the  theory  of  Luke's  dependence  upon  Mark 
(Luke  iv.  31-37;  Mark  i.  21-28;  Luke  xxi.  1-4;  Mark 
xii.  41-44).  In  the  remaining  five  passages  the  evi- 
dence against  dependence  is  more  positive  than  is  the 
evidence  for  dependence  in  the  two  cases.  Thus,  for 
example,  in  the  story  of  the  Gerasene  demoniac  (Mark 
v.  1-20;  Luke  viii.  26-39),  each  evangelist  has  his  own 
peculiar  name  for  the  region,  Mark  calling  it  the  coun- 
try of  the  Gerasejies,  and  Luke  the  country  of  the  Ger- 
gesenes.  In  Mark  the  demoniac  comes  out  of  the  tombs ; 
in  Luke  out  of  the  city.  In  Mark  the  demoniac,  when 
healed,  published  the  fact  though  the  entire  region  of 

1  Mark      i.  21-28  ;  Luke     iv.  31-37. 

Mark     i.  35-38  ;  Luke     iv.  42,  43. 

Mark   iv.  21-25  ;  Luke  viii.  16-18. 

Mark   ix.  38-41  ;  Luke    ix.  49,  50. 

Mark  xii.  41-44  3  Luke  xxi.    1-4. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  347 

Dccapolis,  in  Luke  he  published  it  through  the  city.  In 
this  instance  a  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark  seems 
wholly  improbable.  Or,  take  the  narrative  of  the  rais- 
ing to  life  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  (Mark  v.  21-24, 
35-43;  Luke  viii.  40-42,  49-56).  Luke  tells  us  that 
this  was  an  only  child.  In  Mark  several  messengers 
come  to  Jesus,  in  Luke  but  one.  In  Mark  Jesus  says 
to  the  throngs,  "  Why  do  ye  weep .'' "  in  Luke  He  says, 
"Weep  not."  In  Mark  it  is  plain  that  the  miracle  was 
wrought  in  the  presence  of  only  five  people  —  the 
parents  of  the  child,  and  Peter,  James,  and  John ;  but 
Luke's  account  is  not  clear  on  this  point.  Mark  gives 
the  impression  that  all  who  beheld  the  miracle  were 
amazed,  and  that  secrecy  was  enjoined  on  all,  which 
was  probably  the  case,  while  Luke  says  that  the  parents 
were  amazed,  and  that  tJiey  were  commanded  not  to 
tell  what  had  happened.  These  differences  are  not 
favorable  to  a  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark. 

If,  now,  we  examine  the  larger  class  of  passages 
which  are  common  to  Luke  and  Mark  with  Matthew, 
out  of  about  sixty-three  sections  there  are  some  forty- 
two  where  there  is  evidence,  I  think,  against  the  depend- 
ence of  Luke  on  Mark,  and  only  twenty-one  of  which 
it  may  be  said  that  Luke  might  have  drawn  his  material 
from  Mark.  As  a  rule,  the  evidence  for  dependence  in 
these  cases  is  less  decided  than  the  evidence  for  inde- 
pendence in  the  other  cases.  In  support  of  this  state- 
ment, we  will  first  examine  a  number  of  passages  which 
allow  the  hypothesis  that  Luke  was  dependent  upon 


348  APPENDIX 

Mark.  This  may  be  claimed  for  his  account  of  the 
healing  of  the  paralytic  in  Capernaum  (Mark  ii.  1-12; 
Luke  V.  17-26),  though  he  has  some  items  not  found  in 
Mark.  In  the  narrative  of  the  call  of  Levi,  there  are 
details  that  are  not  favorable  to  Luke's  dependence 
(Mark  ii.  13-17;  Luke  v.  27-32).  Thus  while  Mark 
puts  the  call  of  Levi  by  the  lake-side,  Luke  is  not  more 
definite  than  that  it  was  outside  the  house  of  Peter.  Is 
it  probable  that  if  he  had  been  dependent  upon  a  defi- 
nite statement,  he  would  have  changed  it  for  an  indefi- 
nite one }  Again,  Luke  alone  has  the  circumstances 
that  Levi  left  all,  that  the  meal  which  Jesus  shared  in 
Levi's  house  was  a  great  feast  made  in  His  honor,  and 
that  the  Pharisees  reproached  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
as  well  as  Jesus  Himself,  because  they  ate  with  publi- 
cans and  sinners.  If  Mark  was  here  a  source  for  Luke, 
it  is  certain  that  he  was  not  the  only  source. 

In  the  report  of  Jesus'  reply  to  the  Pharisees  in 
regard  to  fasting  (Mark  ii.  18-22;  Luke  v.  33-39),  and 
in  the  account  of  the  first  conflict  in  regard  to  the  Sab- 
bath (Mark  ii.  23-28  ;  Luke  vi.  1-5),  we  might  hold 
that  Luke  drew  his  material  from  Mark.  In  the  par- 
ables of  the  sower  and  the  mustard  (Mark  iv.  1-9 ;  30- 
32  ;  Luke  viii.  4-8  ;  xiii.  18,  19),  Mark  maybe  considered 
as  the  source  of  Luke's  account.  The  variations  of  the 
third  Gospel  are  formal,  as  when  it  is  said  that  the  good 
ground  bears  a  hundred-fold  instead  of  thirty,  sixty,  and 
a  hundred.  The  words  which  Jesus  spoke  at  Caesarea 
Philippi  in  regard  to  suffering  are  given  by  Mark  and 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  349 

Luke  in  such  close  agreement  that  a  dependence  of 
one  narrative  upon  the  other  is  possible  (Mark  viii.  34- 
ix.  I  ;  Luke  ix.  23-27).  But  if  Luke  drew  his  material 
from  Mark,  it  is  singular  that  in  the  following  section  — 
the  account  of  the  transfiguration  —  he  should  have 
departed  from  Mark  so  widely  as  he  does.  The  de- 
parture suggests  that  we  may  better  assume  a  common 
source  for  Luke  and  Mark  in  the  section  where  they 
agree,  than  to  regard  Luke  as  dependent  upon  Mark. 
In  the  story  of  the  unnamed  worker  of  miracles  (Mark 
ix.  38-41  ;  Luke  ix.  49,  50);  in  that  of  the  young  man 
who  wanted  to  know  how  to  earn  eternal  life  (Mark  x. 
17-27;  Luke  xviii.  18-30);  in  the  account  of  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  temple,  where  Luke  is  very  brief  (Mark  xi. 
15-17;  Luke  xix.  45,  46);  in  the  question  regarding 
John  the  Baptist  (Mark  xi.  27-33  ;  Luke  xx.  1-8) ;  in 
the  Pharisees'  question  regarding  the  payment  of  taxes 
to  Caesar  (Mark  xii.  13-17;  Luke  xx.  20-26);  in  the 
passage  regarding  the  greatest  commandment  (Mark  xii. 
28-34;  Luke  X.  25-28);  in  that  concerning  Christ's 
relation  to  David  (Mark  xii.  35-37;  Luke  xx.  41-44); 
in  the  sayings  about  the  fig  tree,  and  the  time  of  the 
parousia  (Mark  xiii.  28-32;  Luke  xxi.  29-33);  and 
finally,  in  the  account  of  the  treachery  of  Judas  (Mark 
xiv.  10,  11;  Luke  xxii.  3-6),  it  is  possible  to  regard 
Mark  as  the  source  from  which  Luke  obtained  his 
material.  To  this  list  we  may,  perhaps,  add  the  section 
regarding  tJie  aboniination  of  desolation  (Mark  xiii.  14- 
20 ;  Luke  xxi.  20-24.     Luke  represents  Jesus  as  saying, 


350  APPENDIX 

"  When  ye  see  Jerusalem  surrounded  by  armies."  This 
language  takes  the  place  of  Mark's  "  abomination  of 
desolation  standing  where  it  ought  not,"  and  may  easily 
be  regarded  as  an  interpretation  of  this  Jewish  figure, 
in  the  light  of  the  historical  fact  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  In  Mark  the  appearance  of  the  "  abomina- 
tion "  is  to  be,  to  believers,  the  signal  for  flight ;  the 
compassing  of  Jerusalem  by  armies  has  this  significance 
also,  but  first  it  is  to  indicate  to  behevers  that  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  at  hand.  This  must  be 
regarded  as  a  free  modification,  if  Luke  is  dependent 
on  Mark.  Again,  in  Mark  Jesus  says  that  when  the 
''  abomination "  shall  appear,  then  he  who  is  on  the 
housetop  is  not  to  come  down,  neither  enter  in  to  take 
aught  from  the  house.  If  this  language  is  taken  liter- 
ally, and  not  as  simple  figure  of  precipitate  flight,  it 
applies  with  greater  force  to  Jerusalem  than  to  any  other 
city  of  Judea.  However,  since  Luke  begins  with  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem,  it  is  of  course  too  late  for  persons 
to  flee  from  the  city,  and  accordingly  this  part  of 
Mark's  words  is  dropped  by  Luke.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  Luke's  divergence  from  Mark  is  most  easily 
accounted  for  by  the  theory  of  his  dependence  upon 
Mark,  but  we  will  grant  that  it  might  be  so  explained. 
Here,  then,  we  have  about  a  score  of  passages, 
most  of  them  brief,  in  regard  to  which  it  is  possible 
to  hold  that  Luke  depended  upon  Mark.  Whether 
this  possible  relationship  is  also  probable^  is  a  ques- 
tion which  we  shall  be  in  a  better  condition  to  answer 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  35  I 

after  we  have  considered  those  passages,  common 
to  the  two  Gospels,  where  Luke's  independence  of 
Mark  is  to  be  held,  though  with  varying  degrees  of 
positiveness. 

There  is  a  group  of  six  passages  in  which  Luke  differs 
from  Mark  chiefly  in  his  setting  of  an  event  or  a  word  in 
the  life  of  Jesus.  Thus,  in  Mark,  Jesus  and  His  earliest 
disciples  enter  Capernaum  from  the  lake-side,  while  in 
Luke  they  come  down  from  Nazareth  (Mark  i.  21, 
22;  Luke  iv.  31,  32).  In  introducing  the  narrative 
of  feeding  the  five  thousand,  Mark  says  that  Jesus  with- 
drew to  a  desert  place  on  account  of  His  disciples.  This 
is  not  mentioned  in  Luke,  but  we  have  the  suggestion 
that  the  withdrawal  was  in  order  to  keep  out  of  the  way 
of  Herod.  Mark  does  not  name  the  place  to  which  Jesus 
withdrew;  Luke  calls  it  Bethsaida  (Mark  vi.  31,  32; 
Luke  ix.  9,  10),  Again,  according  to  Mark,  the  dia- 
logue which  led  to  Peter's  confession  took  place  in  the 
vicinity  of  Caesarea  Philippi,  but  Luke  mentions  no 
place.  In  the  former  Gospel,  it  is  while  Jesus  is  jour- 
neying that  He  asks  the  disciples  what  men  are  think- 
ing in  regard  to  Him ;  in  the  latter,  it  is  after  a  season 
of  solitary  prayer,  when  the  disciples  rejoin  Jesus,  that 
He  asks  this  question  (Mark  viii.  27;  Luke  ix.  18). 
The  second  announcement  which  Jesus  made  in  regard 
to  His  death  was  made,  according  to  Mark,  as  they  were 
passing  through  Galilee,  that  is,  going  from  the  mount 
of   transfiguration  to  Capernaum ;   but   Luke  does  not 


352  APPENDIX 

mention  any  place,  though  it  is  possible  that  he  thought 
of  the  word  as  spoken  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain  on 
which  the  transfiguration  took  place  (Mark  ix.  30 ;  Luke 
ix.  37,  43).  Here  the  difference  between  Luke  and  Mark 
is  not  merely  in  the  setting ;  it  is  also  in  the  announce- 
ment itself,  for  in  Luke  Jesus  alludes  to  His  death,  but 
not  to  His  resurrection  (Luke  ix.  44).  The  healing  of 
Bartimaeus  took  place,  according  to  Mark,  as  Jesus  was 
leaving  Jericho  on  His  journey  to  Jerusalem,  but  accord- 
ing to  Luke  it  took  place  before  He  reached  Jericho 
(Mark  x.  46;  Luke  xviii.  35).  Finally,  the  circum- 
stances introducing  the  prophecy  regarding  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple  are  quite  unlike  in  Mark  and  Luke. 
In  Mark  it  was  one  particular  disciple  who  called  atten- 
tion to  the  great  stones  of  the  temple,  but  in  Luke 
several  persons  were  speaking  of  the  temple.  In  Mark 
four  disciples,  whose  names  are  given,  asked  Jesus  pri- 
vately when  His  prophecies  should  be  fulfilled,  but  in 
Luke  there  are  no  names  and  there  is  no  privacy  (Mark 
xiii.  3,  4 ;  Luke  xxi.  7). 

Now  in  this  group  of  passages  which  we  have  con- 
sidered, it  is  manifest  that,  especially  for  the  narrative 
portions,  Luke  had  a  source  different  from  Mark ;  but 
it  certainly  is  not  probable  that  this  source  contained 
merely  the  setting  of  Jesus'  words  without  the  words 
themselves.  The  probability  is  rather  that  he  drew  his 
entire  material  in  these  passages  from  other  sources 
than  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 

We  pass  on  now  to  consider  the  texts  in  which  Luke's 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  353 

divergence  from  Mark  is  not  in  the  setting  of  the  event 
or  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  but  rather  in  the  report  of 
the  words  or  in  the  description  of  the  event.  His  inde- 
pendence is  here  more  strikingly  manifest,  though  of 
course  not  equally  in  every  passage. 

Early  in  the  Gahlean  ministry  Jesus  healed  a  leper 
(Mark  i.  40-45  ;  Luke  v.  12-16).  Luke  says  this  took 
place  in  one  of  the  cities  —  an  item  not  found  in  Mark. 
Again,  the  reason  which  Mark  gives  why  Jesus  was  in 
desert  places  is  not  found  in  Luke,  and  his  narrative  is 
in  consequence  somewhat  obscure.  Had  he  been  depend- 
ent upon  Mark,  it  is  not  probable  that  he  would  have 
omitted  so  important  a  point.  Finally,  Luke  gives  the 
information  that  Jesus,  during  this  period  spent  in  desert 
places,  was  much  in  prayer.^  All  these  facts  are  against 
his  dependence  upon  Mark. 

In  the  account  of  the  appointment  of  the  twelve  dis- 
ciples, it  is  difficult  to  regard  Mark  as  the  source  of 
Luke's  narrative  (Mark  iii.  13-19  ;  Luke  vi.  12-16). 
Luke  alone  tells  us  that  Jesus  went  up  into  the  mountain 
to  pray.  We  should  infer  from  Mark's  report  that  His 
chief  object  was  to  appoint  the  twelve.  The  very  im- 
portant material  which  Mark  gives  us,  that  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  twelve  was  to  the  end  that  they  might  be 
with  Jesus,  and  that  He  might  send  them  out,  is  not  in 
Luke.  Finally,  while  Mark  arranges  the  first  four 
apostles  according  to  rank,  Luke  arranges  them  accord- 
ing to  their  call  by  Jesus,  putting  Andrew  second  instead 

1  Note  the  force  of  ^v  .  .  .  Trpoaevx^iJ^vos  in  Luke  v.  16. 
2  A 


354  APPENDIX 

of  fourth.  And  Luke  gives  us  one  name  not  found  in 
Mark's  list,  namely,  Judas,  son  of  James. 

Consider  in  the  next  place  the  account  of  the  storm 
on  the  lake  (Mark  iv.  35-41  ;  Luke  viii.  22-25).  The 
summons  to  go  over  to  the  east  side  is  made  in  Luke 
when  both  Jesus  and  His  disciples  are  in  the  boat;  while 
in  Mark  the  disciples  are  ojt  land,  perhaps  Jesus  also. 
The  words  uttered  by  the  terrified  disciples  are  not  the 
same  in  Luke  and  in  Mark.  And  finally,  if  Luke  had 
had  Mark's  most  vivid  picture  of  this  event  before  him, 
it  would  be  strange  that  he  retained  none  of  the  pictu- 
resque details  —  the  many  boats  that  started  with  Jesus, 
the  waves  beating  into  the  boat,  Jesus  asleep  on  the 
cushion  in  the  stern,  and  the  words  which  He  spoke  to 
the  sea. 

Take  the  narrative  regarding  Herod  Antipas  (Mark 
vi.  14-16;  Luke  ix.  7-9).  In  Mark  Herod  says,  on 
hearing  about  Jesus,  that  John  the  Baptist  is  risen  from 
the  dead ;  while  in  Luke  he  is  said  to  be  perplexed  be- 
cause others  are  of  the  opinion  that  John  is  risen.  He 
says,  "  John  I  beheaded ;  but  who  is  this  concerning 
whom  I  hear  such  things  .''  " 

In  the  narrative  of  the  rejection  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth, 
Luke's  material  is  mainly  peculiar  to  himself,  and  there 
is  no  suggestion  of  dependence  upon  Mark  (Mark  vi. 
1-6;  Luke  iv.  16-30).  In  the  section  regarding  the 
mission  of  the  twelve  in  Galilee,  Mark  allows  a  staff ; 
Luke  says  that  the  disciples  are  not  to  take  one  (Mark 
vi.  7-1 1  ;  Luke  ix.  1-5).     Luke's  account  of  the  trans- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  355 

figuration  is  such  that  we  cannot  regard  it  as  dependent 
upon  Mark  (Mark  ix.  2-8  ;  Luke  ix.  28-36).  Accord- 
ing to  Mark,  the  transfiguration  was  six  days  after  Peter's 
confession ;  according  to  Luke,  it  was  about  eight  days 
after  that.  Luke  alone  tells  us  that  Jesus  went  up  into 
the  mountain  to  pray^  and  that  the  transfiguration 
occurred  zvhile  He  ivas  praying.  Luke  has  other  material 
which  is  not  in  Mark,  namely,  the  shining  of  Jesus'  face 
and  the  subject  of  the  conversation  which  Moses  and 
Elijah  had  with  Jesus.  Finally,  according  to  Mark, 
Peter's  word  about  three  tabernacles  for  Jesus,  Moses,  and 
Elijah,  together  with  the  cloud  and  the  voice  out  of  the 
oXoVi^y  precede  the  departure  of  Elijah  and  Moses,  while 
in  Luke  they  follow  that  departure.  These  features 
of  Luke's  narrative  are  against  his  dependence  upon 
Mark.  The  argument  is  equally  strong  which  is  afforded 
by  the  narrative  regarding  the  relative  rank  of  the  disci- 
ples (Mark  ix.  33-37  ;  Luke  ix,  46-48).  Mark  locates 
the  controversy  in  Capernaum  in  a  house,  presumably 
the  house  of  Peter;  Luke  mentions  noplace.  In  Mark 
Jesus  places  the  little  child  in  the  midst  of  the  twelve  ; 
in  Luke  He  places  it  by  His  own  side.  Moreover,  if 
Luke  had  been  acquainted  with  Mark,  it  would  be 
strange  that  he  should  have  omitted  the  fact  that  Jesus 
embraced  the  child. 

Again,  consider  the  parable  of  God's  vineyard  (Luke 
XX.  9-19;  Mark  xii.  1-12).  If  Mark  had  been  the  source 
of  Luke,  is  it  probable  that  Luke  would  have  made  the 
following  changes  ?    Mark  says  that  the  owner  of  the 


356  APPENDIX 

vineyard  went  abroad ;  Luke  adds  for  a  long  time. 
Mark  speaks  of  three  servants  sent  one  by  one  to 
receive  the  fruits,  and  then  of  viany  others ;  Luke 
drops  the  7nany  others.  Mark  represents  the  son  as 
slain  in  the  vineyard  ;  Luke  puts  the  deed  oittside 
the  vineyard.  Then  Luke  has  important  details  not 
found  in  Mark.  Thus,  according  to  him,  the  parable 
called  out  from  the  hearers  the  words,  ''  God  forbid." 
And  Luke  says  that  Jesus,  when  about  to  quote  the 
Scripture  regarding  the  corner-stone,  looked  upon  the 
people.  This  sounds  like  the  word  of  an  eye-witness, 
and  as  Luke  was  not  such  a  witness,  it  suggests  that 
he  had  a  first-rate  source.  Finally,  Luke  has  the  word 
of  Jesus  about  falling  upon  the  "  stone."  Now  if  Luke 
did  not  invent  these  various  details,  he  must  have  had 
a  source  other  than  Mark.  And  if  he  had  a  source 
other  than  Mark,  who  can  say  how  closely  and  largely 
he  followed  it } 

Again,  in  his  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  Luke  certainly  is  not  dependent  upon  Mark 
(Luke  xxii.  19-20;  Mark  xiv.  22-25).  If  we  follow  the 
view  of  Westcott  and  Hort  in  regard  to  the  Greek  text 
of  this  passage,^  the  cup  preceded  the  bread,  while  in 
Mark  the  bread  was  given  first,  then  the  cup.  More- 
over, Luke  makes  important  additions  to  Mark's 
version.  Thus  to  the  words,  "  This  is  my  body,"  he 
adds,  "  which  is  given  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me"  ;  and  he  speaks  of  the  covenant  as  the  "new" 
covenant.      Then  he  represents  Jesus  as   saying  that 

1  The  New  Testament  in  Greeks  Appendix,  pp.  63-64. 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  357 

His  blood  is  shed  "for  you,"  that  is,  for  the  disciples  ; 
while  in  Mark  Jesus  says  it  is  shed  "for  many."  We 
conclude  in  regard  to  this  passage  that  it  furnishes 
strong  evidence  for  Luke's  independence  of  Mark. 
Had  Mark  been  his  chief  source,  then  why  did  he  not 
follow  him  ?  But  if  he  had  another  source  from  which 
he  drew  his  material  and  the  order  of  events,  then  what 
reason  is  there  for  thinking  that  he  had  anj/  acquain- 
tance with  Mark's  Gospel  ? 

There  are  numerous  sections  in  the  account  of  the 
betrayal,  the  death,  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  which 
furnish  decided  evidence  against  the  theory  of  Luke's 
dependence  upon  Mark.  Thus,  in  Luke  the  announce- 
ment of  Peter's  denial  of  his  Master  has  little  resem- 
blance to  that  which  we  have  in  Mark  (Mark  xiv.  27-31  ; 
Luke  xxii.  31-34).  Luke's  record  of  what  transpired 
in  Gethsemane  is  independent  of  that  of  Mark  (Mark 
xiv.  32-42  ;  Luke  xxii.  39-46).  He  says  that  Jesus  was 
separated  a  stone's  cast  from  the  disciples,  and  that  he 
knelt  down  instead  of  falling  upon  the  earth.  The  in- 
junction to  pray,  addressed  to  the  disciples,  occurs  twice 
in  Luke's  account,  once  in  Mark's ;  but  Luke  speaks  of 
only  one  prayer  of  Jesus  in  the  garden,  while  Mark's 
narrative  implies  three.  In  the  narrative  of  the  arrest 
of  Jesus  (Mark  xiv.  45,  47;  Luke  xxii.  47,  50,  51),  Mark 
says  that  Judas  kissed  the  Lord  effusively,  while  in 
Luke  it  is  only  said  that  he  drew  near  to  kiss  Jesus. 
Mark  says  that  the  high  priest's  servant  had  an  ear  cut 
off ;  Luke  says  it  was  his  ri^/it  ear,  and  adds  that  Jesus 


358  APPENDIX 

touched  the  ear  and  healed  it.  His  account  of  what 
took  place  at  the  bar  of  the  Sanhedrin  does  not  read  as 
though  dependent  upon  Mark.  For  in  Mark  it  is  the 
high  priest  who  asks  Jesus  whether  He  is  the  Christ, 
while  in  Luke  the  question  comes  from  several  people, 
and  not  from  the  high  priest.  Then  the  reply  of  Jesus 
which  Luke  gives  us  is  unlike  that  in  Mark,  for  in  Mark 
the  thought  of  the  bystanders  is  directed  to  some  spe- 
cific future  event,  while  in  Luke  it  is  directed  to  some- 
thing which  is  to  be  realized  from  now  onward  (Mark 
xiv.  6i,  62 ;  Luke  xxii.  66-69).  I^^  the  narrative  of 
Peter's  denial  of  the  Lord,  Luke  differs  from  Mark  in 
several  details  where,  on  the  theory  of  dependence,  we 
should  not  expect  differences ;  and  he  also  gives  one 
incident,  not  found  in  Mark,  which  seems  to  have  come 
from  an  eye-witness  (Mark  xiv.  66-72  ;  Luke  xxii.  56-62). 
He  says  that  the  Lord  turned  and  looked  upon  Peter. 
In  Luke's  account  of  the  crucifixion  and  the  death  of 
Jesus,  his  material  is  very  largely  peculiar  to  himself, 
and  there  is  nothing  that  suggests  dependence  upon 
Mark  (Mark  xv.  22-32 ;  Luke  xxiii.  33-43  ;  Mark  xv. 
33-41 ;  Luke  xxiii.  44-49)- 

Finally,  we  may  notice  the  narrative  of  the  empty 
grave  (Luke  xxiv.  i-ii;  Mark  xvi.  1-8).  Luke  men- 
tions one  woman  by  name  who  does  not  appear  in 
Mark.  Luke  says  that  two  men  appeared  to  the 
women  in  the  grave,  while  Mark  mentions  but  one. 
According  to  Luke,  they  ask  the  women  why  they  seek 
the  living  with  the  dead ;  according  to  Mark,  they  say, 


thj:  synoptic  gospels 


359 


"Ye  seek  Jesus  the  Nazarene  who  was  crucified."  The 
latter  part  of  the  angeUc  announcement  in  Luke  is 
wholly  different  from  what  is  attributed  to  the  angel  in 
Mark.  In  both  narratives  the  disciples  are  reminded 
of  a  word  of  Jesus,  but  in  Mark  that  word  of  the  Mas- 
ter is  a  promise  that  His  disciples  should  see  Him  in 
Galilee,  after  His  resurrection,  while  in  Luke  it  is 
simply  His  announcement  that  the  Son  of  man  should 
be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  sinners  and  be  crucified, 
and  rise  on  the  third  day.  Here  again  there  is 
no  trace  of  dependence,  but  everything  points  to 
independence. 

We  have  now  considered  briefly  the  data  which  bear 
on  the  relation  of  Luke  to  Mark.  We  find  that  for 
every  passage  where  a  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark 
is  possible,  there  are  two  passages  where  such  a  depend- 
ence is  highly  improbable.  Therefore,  in  view  of  this 
preponderating  evidence  against  dependence,  we  hold 
that  it  is  more  rational  to  assume  a  common  source  for 
Luke  and  Mark,  that  is,  for  those  passages  in  which 
they  so  closely  agree,  than  to  hold  that  Luke  was  here 
dependent  upon  Mark. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  relation  of  Mark  and 
Matthew.  The  prevalent  view  among  those  who  hold 
the  interdependence  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  is  that 
Matthew  depended  upon  Mark,  though,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  latest  writer  inverts  this  order.  There  are 
twelve  short  sections,  not  to  mention  single  verses,  in 
which   Matthew  and   Mark   have  common  matter   not 


360  APPENDIX 

found  in  Luke.  Of  these  twelve  sections,  one-half  ^  pre- 
sent differences  so  shght  thatj  if  there  were  other  evi- 
dence pointing  to  a  dependence  of  Matthew  upon  Mark, 
they  also  might  be  regarded  as  in  accord  with  such 
dependence.  However,  in  the  majority  of  these  cases, 
it  would  be  as  easy  to  argue  for  Mark's  dependence 
upon  Matthew  as  for  Matthew's  dependence  upon 
Mark;  and  we  might  as  well  suppose  that  both  alike 
depended  upon  a  common  written  source  as  that  either 
of  them  was  dependent  upon  the  other.  But  in  the 
other  half  of  the  twelve  sections,  the  preponderance  of 
evidence  is  against  the  dependence  of  our  Matthew 
upon  Mark,  Thus,  in  the  narrative  of  the  Syrophoe- 
nician  woman,  the  peculiar  features  of  Matthew  are  in 
favor  of  his  independence  of  Mark  (Mark  vii.  24-30; 
Matt.  XV.  21-28).  His  geographical  description  of  the 
journey  differs  from  Mark's.  He  gives  the  very  words 
which  the  woman  used  as  she  sought  help  from  Jesus, 
and  also  notable  words  of  Jesus  which  are  not  found  in 
Mark.  Again,  Matthew's  brief  account  of  what  took 
place  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  when  Jesus  with  the 
twelve  returned  from  Tyre  and  Sidon  cannot  be  regarded 
as  based  upon  Mark  (Mark  vii.  31-37  ;  Matt.  xv.  29-31). 
For  Matthew  speaks  of  a  public  work  of  Jesus,  in  which 

1  Mark  i.  16-20  with  Matt.  iv.  18-22. 
Mark  vi.  45-52  with  Matt.  xiv.  22-27. 
Mark  vi.  53-56  with  Matt.  xiv.  34-36. 
Mark  vii.  1-23  with  Matt.  xv.  1-20. 
Mark  x.  35-45  with  Matt.  xx.  20-28. 
Mark  xv.  16-20  with  Matt,  xxvii.  27-31. 


THE  SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  361 

many  miracles  of  healing  were  wrought,  while  Mark 
speaks  only  of  a  private  work  and  of  a  single  miracle. 
One  cannot  speak  with  positiveness  of  Matthew's  rela- 
tion to  Mark  as  indicated  by  the  narrative  of  the  feed- 
ing of  four  thousand  men  with  seven  loaves  (Mark  viii. 
i-io;  Matt.  XV.  32-39).  The  circumstance  that  both 
employ  the  same  word  for  basket — a  different  word 
from  that  which  is  found  in  the  account  of  the  feeding 
of  five  thousand  —  suggests  that  they  had  a  common 
source,  unless  one  depended  on  the  other.  Matthew's 
statement  that  there  were  four  thousand  men  besides 
women  and  children,  and  the  statement  that  Jesus  went 
from  the  scene  of  this  miracle  to  the  borders  of  Maga- 
dan, whereas  Mark  says  that  He  came  into  the  parts  of 
Dalmanutha,  do  not  favor  his  dependence  upon  Mark. 
The  conversation  which  Jesus  had  with  the  disciples, 
as  they  came  down  from  the  mountain  on  which  He 
had  been  transfigured,  is  somewhat  obscure  in  Matthew 
(Mark  ix.  9-13  ;  Matt.  xvii.  9-13),  which  we  should  not 
expect  if  he  had  drawn  his  material  from  Mark.  Accord- 
ing to  Mark,  Jesus  repeats  a  teaching  of  the  scribes, 
namely,  "  Elias  coming  first  restores  all  things."  And 
then  He  sets  over  against  this  teaching  of  the  scribes  a 
truth  which  He  had  found  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
greatly  modified  the  popular  teaching.  But  in  Matthew 
the  words  of  the  scribes  are  fully  appropriated  by 
Jesus,  and  the  significant  antithesis  to  them,  which 
Mark  has,  is  omitted.  Next  we  have  the  dialogue  with 
the  Pharisees  regarding  divorce  (Mark  x.  2-12;  Matt. 


362  APPENDIX 

xix.  3-12).  In  Mark  the  Pharisees  ask  whether  it  is 
lawful  to  put  away  one's  wife,  but  in  Matthew  they  ask 
whether  it  is  lawful  to  put  away  one's  wife  for  every 
cause.  One  question  is  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
strict  view,  the  other  from  the  standpoint  of  the  liberal 
view,  of  that  day.  In  Mark  the  order  of  the  argument 
is,  first,  the  Mosaic  legislation,  then  the  Adamic  insti- 
tution; in  Matthew  this  order  is  reversed.  Finally,  in 
the  narrative  regarding  the  barren  fig  tree,  the  depend- 
ence of  Matthew  upon  Mark  is  not  probable  (Mark  xi. 
12-14,  20-26;  Matt.  xxi.  18-22).  Matthew  says  the 
tree  withered  immediately,  and  puts  the  conversation 
regarding  it  in  the  same  hour,  while  in  Mark  it  is 
not  until  the  next  morning  that  the  withering  of  the 
tree  is  noticed,  and  of  course  the  conversation  incident 
upon  that  fact  occurs  then.  It  seems  that  we  must 
here  accept  separate  sources,  unless  we  suppose  that 
the  first  evangelist  modified  Mark's  report  in  order  to 
heighten  the  impression  of  Christ's  wonder-working 
power. 

Now  in  these  last  six  passages  the  evidence  is  plainly 
against  the  dependence  of  Matthew  upon  Mark.  The 
phenomena  can  be  accounted  for  more  readily  on 
the  hypothesis  of  different  sources.  Therefore,  in 
the  previous  six  passages,  where  dependence  of  Mat- 
thew upon  Mark  is  possible,  we  are  inclined  to  hold 
that  such  dependence  is  not  probable. 

When  we  examine  the  material  which  Matthew  and 
Mark  have  in  common  with    Luke,  we   find   that   the 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  363 

relation  which  they  sustain  to  each  other  is  somewhat 
different  from  that  which  Luke  sustains  to  Mark. 
There  are  some  fifty-nine  of  these  common  sections. 
Of  these  about  twenty-four  show  such  sUght  differences 
between  Mark  and  Matthew  that  it  would  be  possible 
to  regard  one  as  dependent  on  the  other.^  But  in  these 
cases  the  question  of  priority  cannot  be  answered. 
Mark  might  have  borrowed  from  Matthew,  or  Matthew 
from  Mark.  In  a  few  passages,  where  the  two  nar- 
ratives are  closely  related,  Matthew  is  briefer  than 
Mark,  and  here,  if  either  was  dependent  upon  the 
other,  priority  might  be  conceded  to  Mark.^  But  for 
every  passage  of  this  sort  there  are  five  in  which  there 
is  evidence  against  the  dependence  of  Matthew  upon 
Mark.  This  is  the  important  point  which  must  now 
be  considered  by  a  rapid  survey  of  the  material  in 
question.  In  the  narrative  of  the  teaching  of  the 
Baptist,  Matthew  gives  the  words  of  John,  and  in  so 
doing  indicates  why  he  was  calling  men  to  repentance 
(Mark  i.  1-6;  Matt.  iii.  1-6).  He  also  adds  to  Mark's 
geographical  description  of  the  extent  of  John's  influ- 
ence, this  detail,  that  all  the  country  around  the  Jordan 
went  out  to  hear  John  preach.  The  Baptist's  announce- 
ment regarding  the  Messiah  presents  some  significant 
points    of    difference    (Mark    i.    7,    8;    Matt.    iii.    11). 

1  Mark  i.  32-34,  40-45  ;  ii.  18-22,  23-28  ;  iii.  13-19,  31-35  ;  iv.  1-9, 
13-20,  30-32  ;  vi.  1-6,  31-34  ;  viii.  34-ix.  I  ;  ix.  2-8,  30-32  ;  x.  32-34  ; 
xi.  15-17,  27-33  ;  xii.  13-17,  18-27  ;  xiii.  28-32  ;  xiv.  10,  ii,  18-21,  53- 
65,  66-72. 

2  E.g.^  Matt.  ix.  1-8,  9-13,  18-26  ;  xvii.  14-20. 


364  APPENDIX 

Thus  the  Baptist  says,  in  Mark,  that  he  is  not  worthy 
to  loose  the  latchet  of  the  Messiah's  sandals ;  in  Mat- 
thew that  he  is  not  worthy  to  carry  His  shoes.  In 
Mark  the  Messiah  is  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit*; 
in  Matthew  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  wit Ji  fire.  Mark's 
narrative  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  is  enriched  by  Mat 
thew  with  the  conversation  between  Jesus  and  the 
Baptist  (Mark  i.  9-1 1;  Matt.  iii.  13-17).  But  more 
than  this,  Matthew  appears  to  be  independent  in  the 
matter  common  to  both.  Thus  the  heavenly  voice 
speaks  in  the  second  person  in  Mark,  but  in  the  third 
person  in  Matthew.  In  Mark  it  bears  witness  to  Jesus 
Himself;  in  Matthew  to  some  other,  presumably  to 
the  Baptist.  Is  this  an  intentional  change  by  the  first 
evangelist,  or  is  it  rather  a  separate  tradition  1  In  the 
account  of  the  temptation  of  Jesus,  Mark  is  very  brief, 
and  Matthew  gives  an  extended  report ;  but  Mark  can- 
not be  regarded  as  an  abbreviation  of  Matthew,  for  in 
Matthew  the  temptation  which  is  described  comes  at 
the  close  of  the  forty  days,  while  in  Mark  Jesus  is 
tempted  during  the  period  of  forty  days  (Mark  i.  12,  13  ; 
Matt.  iv.  i-ii).  The  question  of  Matthew's  depend- 
ence cannot  arise  here. 

In  the  account  of  the  healing  in  Peter's  house,  Mat- 
thew represents  Jesus  as  moved  by  the  sight  of  the 
sick  woman,  while  Mark  says  that  the  disciples  tell 
Him  concerning  her.  Then,  in  Matthew,  Jesus  touched 
her,  and  she  arose,  while  in  Mark  He  took  her  by  the 
hand  and  raised  her  up.      These  details   are   against 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  365 

Matthew's  dependence.  The  same  is  true  in  regard 
to  Matthew's  account  of  the  healing  of  a  withered 
hand  (Mark  iii.  1-6;  Matt.  xii.  9-14).  In  Mark  the 
Pharisees  watched  Jesus  with  hostile  intent,  but 
silently ;  in  Matthew  they  ask  Him  whether  it  is 
lawful  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath.  The  words  of  Jesus 
and  His  grieved  look  are  not  found  in  Matthew,  and 
he  also  omits  the  significant  reference  to  the  Herodians. 

Consider  next  the  account  of  the  storm  on  the  lake 
(Mark  iv.  35-41  ;  Matt.  viii.  18,  23-27).  Matthew  puts 
this  earlier  in  the  ministry  than  does  Mark.  The  cry 
of  the  disciples  in  their  peril,  in  Matthew,  is  not  that 
which  we  have  in  Mark's  narrative.  Further,  it  is 
peculiar  to  Matthew,  that  he  represents  Jesus  as  rebuk- 
ing the  disciples  befoi^e  He  arose  from  the  place  where 
He  was  lying.  Matthew's  account  of  the  heaUng  of 
a  demoniac  in  Gadara,  though  much  briefer  than 
Mark's,  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  an  abbreviation, 
for  in  Mark  there  is  mention  of  only  one  demoniac, 
while  in  Matthew  there  are  two  (Matt.  viii.  28-34; 
Mark  v.  1-20).  Matthew  represents  the  demoniac  as 
asking  Jesus  whether  He  had  come  to  torment  them 
before  the  time;  but  this  thought  may,  perhaps,  be 
attributed  to  the  evangelist. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  death  of  the  Baptist,  Matthew 
is  much  briefer  than  Mark,  but  appears  to  be  wholly 
independent  (Mark  vi.  17-29;  Matt.  xiv.  3-12).  For 
in  Mark,  Herod  is  said  to  reverence  John  and  to  protect 
him,  but  in  Matthew  he  is  said  to  desire  John's  death. 


366  APPENDIX 

He  would  kill  him  if  he  dared.  It  seems  inconsistent 
with  this  when  Matthew,  in  a  later  verse,  says  that 
Herod  was  grieved  by  the  request  of  Herodias  for  the 
Baptist's  head.  Matthew's  account  of  Peter's  confes- 
sion at  Csesarea  Philippi  not  only  contains  pecuhar 
matter,  but  shows  itself  independent  of  Mark  in  that 
which  is  common,  for  where  Mark  says  that  Peter 
rebuked  Jesus,  Matthew  gives  the  very  words  which 
he  used  (Mark  viii.  27-33;  Matt.  xvi.  13-23)-  In  the 
incident  regarding  the  rank  of  the  apostles,  Matthew's 
narrative  seems  to  be  inconsistent  with  Mark's,  and  if 
so,  was  probably  not  dependent  upon  it.  According 
to  Mark,  the  disciples  had  discussed  by  the  way  which 
of  them  was  greatest,  and  when  Jesus  asked  them  what 
they  had  been  talking  about,  they  were  silent,  naturally 
because  they  were  ashamed.  But  in  Matthew  they  are 
represented  as  coming  to  Jesus  and  asking  who  was 
greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  is  certainly 
independent  of  Mark.  So,  apparently,  is  Matthew's 
narrative  regarding  the  children  who  were  brought  to 
Jesus  (Mark  x.  13-16;  Matt  xix.  13-15).  For  he  omits 
the  two  significant  facts  that  Jesus  embraced  the  chil- 
dren and  kissed  them.  In  the  incident  of  the  rich 
young  man,  we  can  hardly  regard  all  of  Matthew's 
divergences  from  Mark  as  intentional  changes  (Mark 
X.  17-31  ;  Matt.  xix.  16-30).  His  words,  "Why  askest 
thou  me  concerning  the  good  .'^ "  maybe  so  regarded ; 
but  when  he  represents  the  young  man  as  saying,  after 
his  declaration  that  he  had  kept  the  law,  ''What  lack 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  367 

I  yet  ? "  and  also  when  he  represents  Jesus  as  saying 
to  him,  ''  If  thou  wouldst  be  perfect,''  then  we  have 
features  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  theory 
of  Matthew's  dependence  upon  Mark. 

Matthew's  description  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  though  so  closely  related  to  Mark,  is  not  depend- 
ent upon  it  (Matt.  xxvi.  26-29;  Mark  xiv.  22-25).  In 
connection  with  the  bread,  he  alone  has  the  command 
to  eat,  and  in  connection  with  the  cup,  he  alone  has 
the  command  that  all  should  drink  of  it.  He  alone 
says  that  the  blood  is  shed  unto  remission  of  sins.  By 
the  words  witJi  you  in  the  29th  verse  he  makes  the 
drinking  of  new  wine  in  the  kingdom  a  celebration  of 
the  reunion  with  the  disciples.  This  thought  is  wanting 
in  Mark. 

Matthew's  description  of  the  scene  in  Gethsemane 
bears  evident  traces  of  being  independent  of  Mark 
(Matt.  xxvi.  36-46;  Mark  xiv.  32-42).  The  most 
noticeable  difference  is  in  the  prayers  of  Jesus.  In 
Mark  we  read,  ''  Abba,  Father,  all  things  are  possible 
to  thee :  remove  this  cup  from  me."  In  Matthew  we 
read,  ''  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me."  Mark  says  that  at  the  second  time  Jesus  spoke 
the  same  word :  he  does  not  record  it.  Matthew  gives 
the  second  prayer,  and  it  is  different  from  the  first.  It 
is,  "  My  Father,  if  this  cannot  pass  from  me  except  I 
drink  it,  thy  will  be  done."  The  first  is  a  prayer  that 
the  cup  may  pass  ;  the  second  is  rather  a  prayer  for 
a  spirit  of  resignation.     Here   it   would   be   easier   to 


368  APPENDIX 

suppose  that  Mark  depended  upon  Matthew  than 
that  Matthew  depended  on  Mark,  but  neither  supposi- 
tion is  satisfactory. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  crucifixion  there  are  details 
which  argue  against  Matthew's  dependence  upon  Mark 
(Mark  xv.  22-32;  Matt,  xxvii.  33-44).  Thus  Mark 
says  that  Jesus  did  not  receive  the  mixture  of  wine  and 
myrrh  which  was  offered  Him  as  He  was  about  to  be 
crucified,  but  Matthew  says  that,  having  tasted^  He 
would  not  drink  it.  To  another  source  than  Mark  we 
are  pointed,  in  like  manner,  by  the  circumstance  that 
the  soldiers,  having  crucified  Jesus,  sat  down  and 
watched  Him. 

Finally,  in  the  section  regarding  the  empty  grave  and 
the  angel,  there  is  evidence  of  Matthew's  independence 
of  Mark  (Mark  xvi.  1-8  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  i-io).  Thus,  as- 
cording  to  Mark,  tJn^ee  women  went  early  to  the  grave, 
but  Matthew  mentions  only  two.  In  Mark  the  women 
see  an  angel  in  the  tomb,  who  tells  them  that  Jesus  is 
risen ;  in  Matthew  the  angel  who  tells  the  women  that 
Jesus  is  risen,  is  ivithont  the  tomb,  seated  on  the  great 
stone  which  had  been  rolled  from  the  door  of  the  sepul- 
chre. After  announcing  the  resurrection,  the  angel 
summons  the  women  to  come  and  see  the  place  where 
Jesus  lay,  while,  according  to  Mark,  they  saw  the  inte- 
rior of  the  tomb  before  the  angel  spoke  to  them.  There 
is  another  singular  difference  in  the  narrative.  The 
angel,  according  to  Mark,  tells  the  women  to  go  to  the 
disciples  with  this  message  :  "  He  goes  before  you  into 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  369 

Galilee;  there  shall  ye  see  Him,  crs  He  said  to  you'' 
This  last  clause  seems  to  refer  to  the  promise  made  by 
Jesus  the  evening  before  His  crucifixion  (Mark  xiv. 
28).  But  according  to  Matthew,  the  angel  says  to  the 
women :  '*  Say  to  His  disciples  that  he  is  risen  from 
the  dead,  and  lo.  He  goes  before  you  into  Galilee; 
there  shall  ye  see  Him.  Lo,  I  have  told  you''  It 
seems  quite  plain  that  the  writer  of  this  passage 
cannot  have  been  acquainted  with  Mark's  Gospel, 
for  he  would  not  have  exchanged  the  word  of  Jesus 
for  an  angel's  word,  which,  moreover,  has  little 
significance. 

We  have  thus  far  considered  only  the  content  of  the 
Gospels  in  its  bearing  upon  the  question  of  their  mutual 
relationship. 

There  is  another  fact  which  is  often  adduced  as  proof 
that  Matthew  and  Luke  are  dependent  upon  Mark, 
and  that  is  the  agreement  in  the  order  in  which  the 
Synoptists  recount  the  various  events  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  It  is,  of  course,  improbable  that  three  persons, 
proceeding  independently,  would  arrange  in  the  same 
order  a  large  number  of  biographical  events,  which 
might  with  equal  propriety  be  arranged  in  different 
ways.  But  let  us  notice  the  extent  to  which  the 
Synoptists  agree  in  this  point,  and  the  character  of  the 
matter  where  this  agreement  is  found. 

Taking  Huck's  arrangement  of  the  Greek  text  as  a 
general  basis,  we  have  about  sixty-four  sections  which 
are  common  to  all  the  Synoptists.     Of  these  sections, 

2  B 


370  APPENDIX 

about  thirty-eight  occur  in  the  same  order  in  all  the 
three  narratives.  But  in  the  larger  part  of  these  thirty- 
eight  sections  the  events  are  such  that  they  can  be 
arranged  in  only  one  order.^  Thus  they  all  speak  of 
the  Baptist,  of  his  announcement  of  the  Messiah,  of  the 
baptism  of  Jesus,  His  temptation,  His  return  to  Galilee, 
and  the  beginning  of  His  work  in  Capernaum.  So  far 
there  is  no  necessity  of  supposing  that  one  evangelist 
derived  his  order  of  events  from  another. 

The  story  of  the  days  spent  near  Caesarea  Philippi 
shows  the  same  order  of  events  in  all  the  Synoptists. 
The  confession  of  Peter  was  followed  by  Christ's 
announcement  of  His  death,  the  transfiguration,  the 
cure  of  the  epileptic  boy,  the  second  announcement  of 
death,  and  the  strife  among  the  apostles  as  to  who  was 
greatest.  Yet  here  the  agreement  in  order  is  quite 
explicable  without  the  assumption  of  the  dependence  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  upon  Mark.  The  first  three  events 
are  in  logical  order,  and  could  not  have  been  narrated 
otherwise  than  as  they  are.  The  agreement  in  the  order 
of  the  others  may  be  readily  explained  without  the  as- 
sumption of  any  written  source  whatever.  The  most  con- 
tinuous agreement  in  the  order  of  events  is  found  in  the 
narrative  of  the  last  few  days  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  Be- 
tween His  entry  into  Jerusalem  and  His  resurrection, 
the  matter  common  to  the  three  evangeUsts  is  arranged 

1  This  aspect  of  the  subject  is  not  taken  into  account  in  Stiidia  Biblica 
et  Ecdesiastica,  Vol.  II.,  where  the  question  of  order  in  the  Gospel  material 
is  elaborately  discussed  by  F.  H.  Woods. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  37 1 

in  the  same  order,  with  few  exceptions.  But  in  most  of 
these  cases  only  one  order  was  possible,  and  therefore 
the  agreement  has  no  bearing  upon  the  mutual  relation 
of  the  three  narratives.  Thus,  for  example,  if  we  begin 
with  the  preparation  for  the  Passover,  we  can  have  but 
one  order  of  sequence  for  the  following  events :  the 
paschal  feast,  the  Lord's  Supper,  Gethsemane,  the 
arrest,  trial  by  the  Sanhedrin,  trial  by  Pilate,  the  inci- 
dent regarding  Barabbas,  the  crucifixion,  death,  burial, 
and  the  empty  grave.  When  the  sequence  of  events  is 
not  thus  determined  by  the  very  nature  of  the  events 
themselves,  we  find  the  cases  of  disagreement  in  the 
order  of  arrangement  much  more  numerous  than  the 
cases  of  harmony.  The  agreement  of  Mark  and 
Matthew  in  the  arrangement  of  some  ten  events  of  the 
Galilean  ministry,  where  the  order  is  not  determined  by 
internal  necessity,  argues  a  common  source  for  both. 
It  does  not  necessarily  point  to  a  dependence  of  one 
upon  the  other.  In  view  of  the  strong  evidence 
against  such  dependence,  this  partial  agreement  in 
order  cannot  be  regarded  as  having  any  considerable 
weight. 

Such,  then,  is  the  extent  and  such  the  quality  of  the 
evidence  which  seems  to  support  the  position  that  our 
Synoptic  Gospels  are  mutually  independent.  The  items 
which  favor  the  dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
upon  Mark  are  as  adequately  explained  by  the  hypoth- 
esis of  common  sources ;  and  then  we  have  to  reckon 
with  the  more  numerous  items  which  are  wholly  incon- 


372  APPENDIX 

sistent  with  the  theory  that  Mark  was  a  main  source 
for  either  Matthew  or  Luke. 

A  second  element  in  the  sokition  of  the  Synoptic 
problem  is  tJie  recognition  that  the  writers  drczu,  to  some 
extent,  from  written  sources.  This  seems  to  have  been 
the  case  most  largely  with  the  third  evangelist,  and  to 
the  least  extent  with  the  second  evangelist.  The  only 
writer  who  tells  us  anything  about  the  origin  of  his 
Gospel  is  Luke.  He  says  that,  prior  to  his  time,  ma7iy 
had  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning 
the  things  which  had  been  fulfilled  among  them  (Luke 
i.  1-4).  These  unnamed  writers  had  drawn  their 
materials  from  those  who  had  been  eye-witnesses  from 
the  first,  an  expression  which  of  course  applies  to  the 
apostles,  but  not  to  them  exclusively.  For  when 
the  eleven  wished  to  fill  the  place  made  vacant  by 
the  treachery  of  Judas,  there  were  men  of  whom  Peter 
could  say,  they  "have  companied  with  us  all  the  time 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  went  out  among  us, 
beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  the  day  that 
He  was  received  up  from  us  "  (Acts  i.  21,  22). 

All  these  early  narratives  which  Luke  had  in  mind 
were  thus  based  on  personal  testimony,  and  yet  no 
one  of  them  was  wholly  satisfactory  to  Luke  for  the 
purpose  of  confirming  the  faith  of  Theophilus.  But 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  some  of  these  nar- 
ratives, which  Luke  knew  to  be  based  on  the  testimony 
of  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word,  were  among 
his  sources  when  he  drew  up  his  own  Gospel.     He  him- 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  373 

self  was  not  an  eye-witness,  and,  so  far  as  we  know, 
had  not  associated  with  eye-witnesses.  He  is  known  to 
us  as  the  companion  of  Paul.  Therefore,  he  had  to 
depend  upon  the  witness  of  others,  and  it  seems  proba- 
ble that  these  written  narratives  were  of  special  value 
to  him,  as  his  life  was  not  spent  in  Palestine,  where  he 
would  be  in  contact  with  the  fullest  oral  tradition,  but 
in  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Rome.  It  is  altogether 
probable  that  Luke  was  more  largely  dependent  on 
written  sources  than  either  of  the  other  Synoptists.  As 
appears  from  the  foregoing  analysis  of  the  Synoptists, 
there  is  no  reason  for  holding  that  among  the  many 
narratives  to  which  Luke  refers,  the  Gospel  of  Mark  or 
of  Matthew  was  included. 

With  reference  now  to  the  second  Gospel,  it  might  be 
thought  at  the  outset  that  there  is  no  necessity  of 
assuming  any  written  source.  For,  according  to  the 
well-known  testimony  of  Papias,^  Mark  wrote,  appar- 
ently after  the  death  of  Peter,  what  he  remembered 
that  Peter  had  said.  This  living  apostolic  source  might 
be  supposed  to  render  any  other  source  unnecessary. 
But  we  should  be  giving  an  unwarrantable  importance 
to  the  statement  of  Papias,  if  we  concluded  from  it  that 
Peter  was  the  exclusive  source  of  the  second  Gospel,  or 
if  we  held  that  the  second  Gospel  had  preserved  all  that 
Peter  taught,  and  exactly  as  he  taught  it.  The  vivid- 
ness of  the  second  Gospel,  its  numerous  touches  which 
betray  the  eye-witness,  and  its  superiority  in  those  sec- 

^  Eusebius,  Ecclesiastical  History,  III.  39. 


374  APPENDIX 

tions  where  Peter  alone  of  the  Synoptists  was  an  eye- 
witness, confirm  the  statement  of  Papias  regarding 
Mark's  relation  to  Peter,  but  it  cannot  be  held  that 
Mark  drew  from  no  other  source.  When  he  took  in 
hand  to  record  what  he  remembered  from  the  preaching 
of  Peter,  it  is  not  probable  that  he  found  himself  able 
to  recall  the  entire  matter  of  the  Gospel  as  we  have  it. 
Single  incidents  and  particular  sayings  he  may  have 
heard  from  Peter's  lips  so  often  that  they  were  in  dis- 
tinct remembrance,  but  it  is  unlikely  that  he  could 
reproduce  from  memory  the  whole  narrative  with  its 
almost  innumerable  details.  There  are  passages  which 
from  their  nature  would  have  been  seldom  related  by 
Peter;  for  example,  the  question  of  the  Pharisees  re- 
garding divorce,  the  question  of  fasting,  Herod's  opinion 
of  Jesus,  and  the  discussion  regarding  ceremonial  clean- 
ness. It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  in  such  portions 
of  his  narrative  he  consulted  no  other  source  than  his 
memory  of  what  he  had  heard  from  Peter.  But 
whether  there  is  evidence  that  he  used  any  written 
source  is  perhaps  still  an  open  question.  Jiilicher^ 
thinks  there  is  no  stringent  proof  that  Mark  had  any 
written  sources.  Weizsacker^  too,  though  he  thinks 
Mark  was  acquainted  with  the  so-called  Logia,  believes 
that  he  made  very  little  use  of  this  writing.  On  the 
other  hand,   Weiss ^  holds  that   Mark  must  have  had 

1  Einleihing  in  das  N.  T.,  1894,  p.  226. 

2  Das  Apostolische  Zeitalter,  1886,  p.  385. 

^  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  1886,  p.  506  ;   also  Wernle,  Die  synoptische 
Frage,  1899. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  375 

some  documentary  source,  such  being  necessary  in  his 
judgment  to  account  for  a  long  address  Hke  the  Escha- 
tological  Discourse  ;  and  Sanday  ^  also  seems  to  let  Mark, 
as  well  as  Matthew  and  Luke,  depend  upon  a  common 
written  source.  Others  think  only  of  an  oral  tradition 
as  underlying  Mark,  which,  however,  had  become  almost 
as  fixed  in  form  as  though  it  had  been  written. 

In  regard  to  the  first  Gospel,  we  should  have  to  say 
at  once  that  it  rests  in  part  upon  written  sources,  were 
it  plain  that  the  writing  which  Papias^  ascribed  to 
Matthew  included  only  the  sayings  of  Jesus.  Scholars 
are  divided  on  this  point,  some  limiting  the  Logia  which 
Papias  says  that  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  to  the 
words  of  Jesus,  or  the  words  with  brief  narrative  set- 
tings, and  others  holding  that  the  language  of  Papias 
refers  to  an  Aramaic  Gospel.^  However,  even  on  the 
assumption  that  our  first  Greek  Gospel  is  a  substantial 
reproduction  of  the  Aramaic  writing  and  so  is  virtually 
the  work  of  Matthew,  there  is  not  a  little  probability 
that  he  made  use  of  written  sources.  For  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  and  other  long  addresses  of  Jesus  can 
scarcely  have  been  reproduced  from  memory  after  the 
lapse  of  thirty  or  forty  years  with  all  the  freshness  and 
conciseness  which  mark  these  addresses.  It  seems 
probable  that  they  had  been  committed  to  writing  by 
some  one  long  before  the  composition  of  the  present 

1  A  Survey  of  the  Synoptic  Question,  in  the  Expositor  for  1891. 

2  Eusebius,  Ecclesiastical  History,  III.  y], 

3  E.g.,  Zahn,  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  II.  252-262. 


3/6  APPENDIX 

Gospel.  And  this  probability  receives  support  from  the 
analysis  of  the  material  common  to  the  Synoptists.  The 
verbal  agreement  between  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke 
is,  in  some  cases,  most  satisfactorily  explained  on  the 
supposition  of  written  sources.  A  striking  illustration 
of  the  necessity  of  assuming  a  written  source  is  fur- 
nished by  Mark  xiii.  14  and  Matthew  xxiv.  15.  Both 
evangelists  insert  the  same  parenthetic  remark  into  the 
words  of  Jesus,  and  insert  it  at  precisely  the  same 
point.  Now  since  there  is  evidence  for  the  indepen- 
dence of  Mark  and  Matthew,  the  fact  just  mentioned 
argues  dependence  of  both  upon  a  written  document. 
Yet  while  holding  it  highly  probable  that  all  our  Synop- 
tists were  to  some  extent  dependent  upon  written  sources, 
we  would  not  press  the  point  of  their  verbal  agreement, 
and  say  that  this  absolutely  requires  written  sources. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  verbal  agreement  of  all  three 
Synoptists  rarely  extends  to  an  entire  verse,  even  in  the 
words  of  Jesus,  and  such  resemblances  are  perhaps  not 
inconsistent  with  oral  tradition,  especially  when  it  is 
remembered  that  these  three  narratives  originated  within 
a  few  years  of  each  other,  originated  among  those  who 
had  the  deepest  interest  in  the  facts,  and  originated 
while  eye-witnesses  were  still  living.  If  we  could  as- 
sume with  Mr.  Wright  that  there  had  been  from  the 
very  beginning  systematic  and  thorough  catechetical 
instruction  in  the  Gospel,  instruction  which  involved  a 
careful  memorizing  of  the  different  parts  of  the  narra- 
tive, then  it  would  appear  still  less  necessary  to  pre- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  377 

suppose  written  sources  in  order  to  account  for  the 
verbal  agreement  between  the  Synoptists,  or  for  their 
agreement  in  the  order  of  narration. 

A  third  element  in  the  solution  of  the  Synoptic 
problem  is  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  there  zvere  sev- 
eral or  many  eye-witnesses  of  the  variotts  events  in  the  life 
of  Jesus ^  and  several  or  many  persons  who  heard  His 
teaching ;  that  these  witnesses^  each  in  his  own  circle, 
became  sources  of  informatioji  regarding  Jestcs  ;  and  that 
to  this  original  plurality  of  witnesses  the  greater  part  of 
the  differences  between  the  Synoptists  can  easily  be  traced. 

For  nearly  every  incident  in  the  life  of  Jesus  there 
were  many  witnesses.  Even  on  the  mount  of  trans- 
figuration and  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  there  were 
three  disciples  with  Jesus,  and  when  He  hung  upon  the 
cross  there  was  one  apostle  near,  besides  several 
believing  women.  The  various  apostles  and  disciples 
saw  and  heard  each  with  his  own  eyes  and  ears,  and 
when  the  apostles  began  to  teach  after  Pentecost,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  they  all  taught  with  the  same  words. 
Each  taught  according  to  what  he  had  seen  and  heard. 
There  was  essential  agreement  in  their  testimony,  but 
all  degrees  of  difference  in  details. 

Now  without  doubt  the  apostles  were  the  chief 
ultimate  source  from  which  flowed  the  Gospel  story, 
but  they  were  not  the  only  eye-witnesses.  There  were 
many  believers  who  had  heard  some  of  the  Great 
Teacher's  words,  many  who  had  witnessed  this  or  that 
miracle.     Such  people  would  inevitably  tell  what  they 


378  APPENDIX 

had  seen  and  heard,  and  thus  little  Gospel  rivulets  were 
started  which  may  easily  have  reached  to  the  time 
when  our  Gospels  were  composed.  Indeed,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  the  oral  tradition, 
whether  from  apostolic  or  other  source,  was  so  copious 
and  well  attested  that  a  Papias  could  say  that  he  pre- 
ferred it  to  the  written  Gospels.  The  air  seemed  to  be 
full  of  the  facts  of  the  wonderful  life. 

It  seems  natural  and  indeed  inevitable  that  the  oral 
tradition  in  its  entirety  bore  the  stamp  of  diverse 
personalities.  Nor  was  this  stamp  effaced  as  time 
went  by,  and  the  Gospel  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth. 
It  persisted,  and  when  written  narratives  finally 
appeared,  it  reappeared  in  them.  One  man  was  the 
author  of  each  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  with  a  possible 
exception  of  the  first,  but  the  material  embodied  in  his 
narrative  may  have  had,  ultimately,  diverse  sources. 
Luke  tells  us  that  he  traced  the  course  of  all  things 
accurately  from  the  first,  and  to  judge  from  the  rich 
content  of  his  narrative,  he  gleaned  widely.  To  how 
many  unnamed  eye-witnesses  the  separate  stories  of 
his  Gospel  finally  reach,  no  one  can  say.  The  second 
Gospel  probably  preserves  the  Petrine  style  of  teach- 
ing, and  largely  also  the  material  used  by  Peter.  The 
first  Gospel  bears  another  stamp,  regarded  as  a  whole, 
and  contains  many  details  which  may  have  come 
originally  from  various  sources. 

We  of  course  cannot  deny  to  the  evangelists  a  certain 
freedom  in  the  use  of  the  material  in  their  hands,  but 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  379 

this  freedom  cannot  without  arbitrariness  be  made  to 
cover  and  account  for  all  the  phenomena  in  question. 
Multitudes  of  differences  between  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
including  the  majority  of  the  greater  ones,  may  be 
ascribed  most  naturally  to  the  original  plurality  of 
witnesses,  and  others  to  the  Hberty  of  oral  tradition, 
especially  in  its  earlier  period.  Such,  then,  seem  to 
me  to  be  the  important  elements  in  the  solution  of  the 
Synoptic  problem  —  recognition  of  the  mutual  inde- 
pendence of  the  narratives,  recognition  of  fixed  sources, 
these  probably  written  to  some  extent,  and  recognition 
of  the  original  plurality  of  witnesses,  with  all  that  this 
implies. 

The  Historicity  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

The  exact  relation  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  to  each 
other,  together  with  the  question  of  their  sources,  is  less 
important  than  the  question  of  their  historical  value,  and 
fortunately  this  latter  question  is  in  a  measure  inde- 
pendent of  the  former.  Scholars  may  substantially 
agree  on  the  question  of  historical  value  while  one 
regards  the  Gospels  as  based  on  oral  tradition,  another 
on  written  documents,  another  on  both  oral  and  writ- 
ten sources,  and  while  still  others  regard  Luke  or 
Matthew  or  both  as  dependent  upon  Mark.  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  the  particular  view  we  take  of 
the  origin  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  may  have  a  certain 
bearing  on  their  historical  value.  Thus,  for  example, 
we  can  rate  their  value  higher  when  their  differences 


380  APPENDIX 

are  traced  to  different  witnesses,  or  to  the  unconscious 
alterations  of  early  tradition,  than  when  these  differ- 
ences are  regarded  as  intentional  changes  made  by 
the  evangelists. 

An  argument  for  the  historical  character  of  these 
writings  may  be  based  either  upon  external  or  internal 
evidence.  We  may  hold  that  the  essential  facts  of  the 
written  Gospel  are  established  by  the  living  Gospel,  that 
they  have  been  verified  from  day  to  day  and  from  year 
to  year,  through  the  centuries,  and  are  still  being  veri^ 
fied,  by  the  most  reliable  spiritual  phenomena  with  which 
men  are  anywhere  acquainted.^  This  argument  for  the 
essential  truthfulness  of  the  Gospel  narrative  is  invinci- 
ble. It  does  not  substantiate  details,  but  great  central 
facts  like  the  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  His 
holy  character,  His  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  the  revealer 
of  God,  and  the  founder  of  a  heavenly  kingdom  —  these 
it  does  substantiate.  Again,  the  historical  character  of 
these  writings  is  supported  by  internal  evidence.  This 
cannot  be  given  here  in  detail,  and  for  the  present  pur- 
pose need  not  be.  I  will  refer  to  a  single  line  of  evi- 
dence only.  The  portraits  of  Christ,  drawn  by  the  first 
three  evangelists,  though  each  one  is  produced  in  part 
by  the  use  of  materials  not  found  elsewhere,  are  essen- 
tially one.  In  each  narrative  He  is  the  Messiah,  equipped 
with  Messianic  authority  to  teach,  to  heal,  to  establish 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  to  forgive  sin,  and  to  be  the  final 
judge  of  men.     In  each  narrative  He  is  truly  human, 

1  Dale,  The  Living  Christ  and  the  Four  Gospels,  1890. 


THE  SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  38 1 

a  descendant  of  David,  living  His  life  under  the  limita- 
tions of  humanity.  According  to  each  of  the  narratives, 
He  is  a  being  who  has  perfect  fellowship  with  God,  and 
who  lives  a  sinless  life.  In  each  He  is  represented  as 
loving  men,  as  setting  an  immeasurable  value  upon  the 
human  soul,  and  as  laying  down  His  life  in  behalf  of 
men.  These  truths  constitute  the  essential  Gospel,  the 
glad  tidings  of  great  joy.  The  fact  that  these  three 
independent  narratives,  while  differing  in  a  multitude 
of  details,  agree  in  presenting  essentially  the  same  por- 
trait of  Jesus,  is  a  strong  argument  for  their  historical 
character.  Their  origin  at  a  time  ^  while  eye-witnesses 
were  still  living,  and  their  acceptance  among  behevers 
from  that  early  day,  are  also  the  best  possible  evidence 
of  their  historical  trustworthiness. 

But  this  claim  of  historicity  does  not  imply  that  all 
narratives  in  these  Gospels  must  be  regarded  as  of 
equal  historical  value.  There  are  details  in  one  Gos- 
pel which  are  contradicted  by  details  of  another.  There 
are  also  details  which  are  rendered  doubtful  by  the  gen- 
eral trend  of  the  entire  Gospel  in  which  they  stand. 
There  are  points  in  regard  to  which  we  have  in  one 
Gospel,  it  may  be  Mark,  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness, 
but  which  are  differently  presented  in  another  narrative 
that  is  not  directly  from  an  eye-witness.  Peter,  the 
chief  source  of  Mark,  was  the  only  one  of  the  Synop- 

1  The  composition  of  Mark  maybe  placed  shortly  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  Luke  soon  after  that  event,  and  Matthew,  in  its  present  form, 
somewhat  later. 


382  APPENDIX 

tists  who  was  present  on  certain  occasions  in  the  life 
of  Jesus  ;  for  example,  at  the  restoration  of  the  daughter 
of  Jairus. 

Again,  there  are  events  described  which  no  one  of  the 
disciples  claims  to  have  witnessed  ;  for  example,  the  de- 
scent of  an  angel  on  Easter  morn,  his  rolling  the  stone 
from  the  door  of  the  tomb,  the  rending  of  the  veil  in 
the  temple  at  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  the  appearance  of 
the  risen  saints  who  entered  into  the  holy  city  after  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  The  evidence  for  the  cruci- 
fixion and  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  incomparably  fuller 
and  more  conclusive  than  the  evidence  that  the  veil  of 
the  temple  was  rent  at  His  death,  or  that  the  stone  at 
the  door  of  His  tomb  was  actually  rolled  back  by  an 
angel.  We  may,  therefore,  affirm  that  the  claim  of  his- 
toricity for  the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  a  whole  does  not 
imply  that  all  statements  of  these  narratives  are  of 
equal  historical  value. 

Again,  the  claim  of  historicity  for  the  Synoptists  does 
not  imply  that  the  impression  which  bystanders  received 
from  the  works  and  words  of  Jesus  was  always  a  correct 
one.  Thus,  for  example,  people  thought  that  the  woman 
who  touched  Christ's  garment  was  healed  without 
the  Master's  knowledge.  Mark  narrates  the  miracle 
from  this  point  of  view  (Mark  v.  29,  30).  But  this 
was  doubtless  a  false  impression.  The  miracles  of 
Jesus  were  not  wrought  by  any  magnetism,  or  by 
any  subtle  physical  force  which  people  could  steal  from 
Him  by  a  touch ;    but  they  were  wrought  by  an  act 


THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  383 

of  His  will,  with  full  consciousness  of  what  He  was 
doing. 

As  His  acts  were  misunderstood  at  times,  so  also  were 
His  words,  and  that  even  by  His  own  disciples.  But  this 
is  so  manifest  that  we  need  not  dwell  upon  it  here.  It 
will  be  admitted  generally  that  the  claim  of  historicity 
for  the  narrative  does  not  imply  that  every  comment 
of  the  evangelist  on  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  is 
necessarily  correct,  or  that  all  impressions  made  by  Jesus 
and  reflected  in  the  Gospels  are  right. 

But  the  evidence  for  the  historical  character  of  the 
essential  claims  of  the  Synoptists  is  abundant  and  con- 
clusive, and  one  ought  not  to  be  troubled  by  any  of  the 
concessions,  which  must  be  made  in  reference  to  details. 
"A  robuster  faith  in  the  Gospels  is  needed,  which, 
instead  of  always  seeking  to  deny  the  existence  of  diffi- 
culties or  to  explain  them  away,  shall  freely  confess 
them,  and  learn  the  lessons  which  they  teach."  ^ 

3.     The  Fourth  Gospel 

In  General. 

A  brief  statement  of  the  critical  position  which  we 
assume  toward  the  fourth  Gospel  is  all  that  is  contem- 
plated in  this  paragraph.  That  Gospel  still  appears  to 
me  to  be  a  trustworthy  source  of  information  regarding 
the  life  of  Jesus.  The  view  that,  as  history,  it  has  no 
value,  seems  quite  as  extreme  as  the  view  that  it  is  of  all 

^  Wright,  The  Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels,  p.  163. 


384  APPENDIX 

the  four  Gospels  the  most  valuable.^  In  regarding  it  as 
a  trustworthy  source  of  information,  I  would  not  mini- 
mize the  wide  and  varied  differences  between  it  and  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  —  differences  in  regard  both  to  the 
external  facts  of  Jesus'  life,  and  also  in  regard  to  His 
teaching.  These  are  to  be  freely  conceded,  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  writing  is  historically  unreliable. 

The  Narratives  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

There  are  some  considerations  in  regard  to  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  narrative  portions  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel which  may  properly  be  stated  here  in  a  general  way. 
First,  this  narrative,  while  chiefly  independent  of  the 
Synoptists,  often  supplements  them  in  a  manner  that 
awakens  confidence  in  the  author's  acquaintance  with  the 
subject.  The  fourth  Gospel's  independence  of  the  Sy- 
noptists, with  perhaps  some  slight  exceptions,  ^  is  mani- 
fest on  every  hand,  though  denied  by  Schiirer  and 
Jiilicher.  It  not  only  contains  a  large  amount  of  mat- 
ter unknown  to  the  first  three  Gospels,  but  in  that  which 
it  shares  with  them,  it  evidently  draws  from  an  indepen- 
dent source.  Thus,  in  the  short  story  of  Christ  upon 
the  lake  (John  vi.  16-21),  which  is  given  also  by  Mark 
and  Matthew  (Mark  vi.  45-52;  Matt.  xiv.  22-33),  the 
fourth  Gospel  alone  has  the  following  important  details  : 

1  H.  K.  Hugo  Delff,  Die  Geschichte  des  Rabbi  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  1889; 
Arthur  Kenyon  Rogers,  The  Life  and  Teachings  of  Jesus,  1894;  Julicher, 
Einleitung  in  das  N.   T.,  1894. 

2  Sanday,  Contemporary  Review,  1891. 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL  385 

it  tells  us  that  the  disciples  embarked  at  even,  that  they 
started  for  Ca^ei^naum,  that  Jesus  had  not  yet  come  to 
them,  that  they  rowed  twenty-five  or  thirty  furlongs,  that 
Jesus  drezv  near  to  the  boat,  and  that  after  Jesus  came  to 
them  tJie  boat  was  immediately  at  the  land.  Or  take  the 
anointing  in  Bethany,  which  John  has  in  common  with 
Mark  and  Matthew  (John  xii.  1-8;  Mark  xiv.  3-9; 
Matt.  xxvi.  6-13).  His  narrative  is  fuller  than  the  others 
of  such  touches  as  we  might  expect  from  an  eye-witness. 
Thus  he  alone  tells  us  that  the  supper  at  which  Jesus 
was  anointed  was  six  days  before  the  Passover,  that  Ma7'- 
tha  served,  that  Lazants  sat  at  meat  with  Jesus,  that  it 
was  Mary  who  brought  the  ointment,  that  she  anointed 
th&  feet  of  Jesus,  that  she  wiped  them  with  her  hair, 
that  the  house  zvas  filled  zvith  the  odor,  and  that  Judas 
murmured.  These  incidents  illustrate  the  independence 
of  the  fourth  Gospel ;  and  what  is  shown  in  regard  to 
these  two  passages  is  manifest  in  the  others  which  John 
has  in  common  with  the  Synoptists. 

But  the  fourth  Gospel,  while  plainly  independent  of 
the  Synoptists,  often  supplements,  explains,  and  justifies 
them  in  a  way  impossible  to  a  writer  of  the  second 
century.  Thus  Mark  and  Matthew  tell  us  that  after 
feeding  the  five  thousand  near  Bethsaida,  Jesus  co7i- 
strained  His  disciples  to  enter  into  a  boat  and  start  for 
the  west  side  of  the  lake  (Markvi.  45  ;  Matt.  xiv.  22). 
This  word  constrained  implies  a  strong  unwillingness  on 
the  part  of  the  disciples  to  return  to  the  west  shore, 
but  the  Synoptists  do  not  intimate  why  they  were 
2  c 


386  APPENDIX 

unwilling  to  return.  The  key  to  this  difficulty  is  fur- 
nished by  John,  who  tells  us  that  after  the  miracle,  and 
in  consequence  of  it,  the  multitudes  were  wrought  up  to 
such  a  pitch  of  enthusiasm  for  Jesus  that  they  were  ready 
to  attempt  to  force  Him  to  become  king  (John  vi.  15). 
Of  course  the  disciples  were  unwilling  to  leave  their 
Master  when  the  air  was  charged  with  this  excitement. 
Again  the  Synoptists  leave  us  in  doubt  regarding  the 
movements  of  Judas  on  the  last  evening.  Mark  and 
Matthew  tell  us  nothing  about  him  from  the  time  when 
Jesus  announced  that  one  of  those  with  Him  at  the 
table  would  betray  Him,  until  the  hour  of  the  arrest. 
We  could  not  learn  from  them  whether  Judas  partook 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Luke,  however,  puts  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Supper  before  the  remark  of  Jesus  that  "the 
hand  of  him  who  betray eth  me  is  with  me  on  the  table  " 
(Luke  xxii.  21),  and  this  implies  that  Judas  partook  of 
the  Supper.  Here  the  fourth  Gospel  comes  in  with 
important  information.  It  supplements  the  narrative  of 
Mark  and  Matthew,  and  reverses  the  order  of  events 
which  Luke  gives.  It  says  that  when  Judas  received 
the  sop  from  Jesus  with  the  accompanying  words,  "  That 
thou  doest  do  quickly,"  he  went  out  straightway  (John 
xiii.  27-30).  This  must  have  been  early  in  the  evening, 
for  some  of  those  at  the  table  thought  Judas  had  gone 
to  buy  things  for  the  feast,  others  that  he  had  gone 
out  to  give  something  to  the  poor.  And  further,  when 
it  had  once  been  announced  by  Jesus  that  one  of  the 
apostles   should   betray    Him,    and   they  were  thereby 


THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  387 

thrown  into  a  state  of  wondering  sorrow,  each  asking, 
"  Is  it  I  ?  "  it  is  most  probable  that  the  moment  did  not 
pass  without  some  intimation  from  Jesus  to  Judas  that 
he  was  the  one  (comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  25).  If  this  intima- 
tion was  given,  then  we  are  obHged  to  associate  John's 
record  with  this  moment,  and  hold  that  the  departure  of 
Judas  preceded  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  is  confirmed 
by  the  inherent  probability  of  the  case.  It  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  Jesus  desired  to  speak  His  farewell  words 
in  a  circle  freed  from  the  oppressive  presence  of  the 
traitor.  It  should  be  noticed  before  leaving  this  incident 
that  the  passage  with  which  the  fourth  Gospel  supple- 
ments the  Synoptists  bears,  throughout,  the  clearest 
imaginable  stamp  of  genuineness.  We  see  a  disciple 
reclining  on  the  bosom  of  Jesus.  Peter  beckons  and 
whispers  to  him  that  he  should  find  out  of  whom  Jesus 
was  speaking.  Jesus  whispers  a  sign  to  the  disciple 
reclining  on  His  bosom,  and  then  speaks  a  word  to 
Judas  which  the  rest  did  not  understand.  Some  thought 
it  meant  one  thing,  some  another.  All  this  is  the 
language  of  an  eye-witness,  and  is  utterly  inexplicable 
as  an  ideal  picture  dating  from  the  second  century. 

Another  illustration  of  the  point  in  hand  is  furnished 
by  the  story  of  the  crucifixion.  According  to  Mark 
and  Matthew,  when  Jesus  uttered  the  cry,  "  My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me.-*"  a  man  ran  and 
gave  Him  drink  (Mark  xv.  36;  Matt,  xxvii.  48).  But 
this  act  stands  in  no  logical  relation  with  the  cry.  Why 
should  these  words  of  mental  anguish  lead  any  one  to 


388  APPENDIX 

give  Jesus  physical  refreshment  ?  Here  is  a  manifest 
obscurity.  The  fourth  Gospel  removes  it  by  telhng  us 
that  Jesus  uttered  the  word,  '*  I  thirst"  (John  xix.  28). 
It  was  on  account  of  this  cry,  therefore,  that  the  drink 
was  given  to  Him. 

These  cases  may  suffice  to  show  how  this  narrative  of 
the  fourth  Gospel,  which  is  manifestly  independent  of 
the  Synoptists,  fits  into  the  Synoptic  story,  completing, 
explaining,  and  justifying  it,  as  we  might  expect  if  the 
author  was  an  independent  eye-witness,  or  one  who  had 
access  to  the  testimony  of  such  a  witness,  but  as  we 
certainly  could  not  expect  from  a  religious  writer  of  the 
second  century. 

Again,  the  trustworthiness  of  the  fourth  Gospel  as 
regards  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus  which  are  therein 
recorded,  seems  to  receive  additional  support  from  the 
fact  that  it  does  not  hesitate  to  depart  from  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  Synoptists.  For  it  is  generally  admitted 
that  its  author  was  acquainted  with  the  Synoptists  ^  and 
he  probably  knew  at  least  as  much  as  we  regarding  their 
indirect  apostolic  origin.  It  seems  probable  that  Mark 
had  been  in  use  many  years  before  the  fourth  Gospel 
was  written,  also  that  Luke  and  Matthew  had  been  cir- 
culated for  a  number  of  years.  Such  being  the  case,  a 
new  and  divergent  narrative  could  scarcely  have  received 
the  indorsement  of  the  churches  unless  it  was  supported 
by  unquestionable  historical  acquaintance  with  the  facts 
and  by  apostolic  authority. 

1  Holtzmann,  Einleitttng,  p,  453. 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL  389 

As  examples  of  what  is  meant  by  the  fourth  Gospel's 
divergence  from  the  Synoptists,  we  may  mention  the 
following  points.  The  Synoptists  put  the  triumphal 
entry  on  the  same  day  with  the  journey  from  Jericho, 
but  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel  it  came  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  after  Jesus  had  spent  a  day  and  two 
nights  in  Bethany  (Mark  xi.  i  ;  Matt.  xxi.  i ;  Luke  xix. 
28,  29;  John  xii.  i).  The  Synoptists  put  the  anointing 
in  Bethany  tivo  days  before  the  Passover  (Mark  xiv.  i  ; 
Matt.  xxvi.  2) ;  the  fourth  Gospel  puts  it  six  days  before 
the  feast  (John  xii.  i).  The  second  Gospel  says  that 
Jesus  was  crucified  the  third  hour  (Mark  xv.  25);  the 
fourth  Gospel  says  it  was  about  the  sixth  hour  when 
Pilate  passed  judgment  on  Jesus  (John  xix.  14).  The 
Synoptists  represent  the  burial  of  Jesus  as  being  per- 
formed hastily,  the  body  being  simply  wound  in  a  linen 
cloth  (Mark  xv.  46;  Matt,  xxvii.  59,  60;  Luke  xxiii. 
53>  54);  the  fourth  Gospel  says  it  was  embalmed  as  the 
custom  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury,  and  that  about  one  hun- 
dred pounds  of  myrrh  and  aloes  were  used  (John  xix. 
39,  40).  It  is  impossible  that  such  a  narrative  was 
received  by  the  Church  early  in  the  second  century 
unless  it  was  known  to  proceed  from  a  man  of  recog- 
nized authority. 

TJie  Discourses  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  are  less 
like  those  of  the  Synoptists  than  the  narrative  parts  of 
John  are  like  the  Synoptic  narrative  of  the  same  events. 


390  APPENDIX 

And  yet  I  think  we  must  regard  these  discourses  as 
essentially  trustworthy.  I  say  essentially  trustworthy, 
for  it  is  to  be  admitted  at  the  outset  that  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  is  not  given  with  the  same  historical  accuracy,  as 
regards  its  form,  that  characterizes  the  Synoptic  ver- 
sion.^ It  has  received  a  deep  personal  coloring  from  the 
devoted  and  profound  mind  through  which  it  has  passed. 
This  appears  from  the  wide  difference  between  the 
Johannean  discourses  of  Jesus  and  His  words  as  recorded 
by  the  Synoptists,  both  as  to  style  and  content.  It 
appears  also  from  the  fact  that  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  are  sometimes  indistinguishable 
from  the  words  of  the  evangelist.  We  can  scarcely 
admit  all  that  Holtzmann^  claims,  who  says  that  "the 
addresses,  formally  considered,  are  the  prope7'ty  of 
the  author,"  and  that  "they  form  a  compact  mass  with 
the  explanations  of  the  evangelist  as  regards  language 
and  content"  ;  but  that  there  is  a  considerable  element 
of  truth  in  the  claim  nearly  all  scholars  admit.  It  is 
not  necessary  therefore  to  dwell  on  this  point. 

The  report  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  accepted  as  essentially  trustworthy  because, 
first,  its  portrait  of  Christ,  notwithstanding  many  pecu- 
liarities, is  in  fundamental  harmony  with  that  of  the 

1  Weiss,  Einleitung,  p.  605;  Sanday  in  Contemporary  Reviewy  1891; 
Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,\.  127-130  ;  Watkins,  Bampton  Lectures,  1890, 
p.  426. 

2  Einleitung,  p.  461.  But  we  must  agree  with  Holtzmann,  also  Weiss 
and  Sanday,  as  against  Wendt,  that  the  fourth  Gospel  has  an  "  essential 
and  indissoluble  unity."     It  cannot  be  divided  into  earlier  and  later  parts. 


THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  39 1 

Synoptists.  Thus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  Jesus  claims  a 
unique  knowledge  of  God  (John  iii.  13;  v.  20;  vi.  46; 
xvii.  II,  12,  25),  a  unique  mission  from  God  (John  v.  36; 
vi.  29;  vii.  28;  viii.  42;  xvii.  18),  and  a  unique  union 
with  God  (John  xiv.  10,  11;  xv.  22-24;  xvii.  21,  22). 
These  claims  are  elaborated  in  the  fourth  Gospel  beyond 
what  we  have  in  the  Synoptists,  but  the  claims  them- 
selves are  not  new.  Matthew  and  Luke  record  words 
of  Jesus  which  involve  all  these  claims  {e.g.  Matt.  xi. 
25-27;  Luke  X.  21,  22).  Thus  they  represent  Jesus  as 
saying,  "  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  by  my 
Father."  That  implies  all  that  is  said  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  about  the  unique  mission  of  Jesus.  Again,  we 
read  in  the  Synoptists,  "  No  man  knoweth  the  Father 
save  the  Son."  Here  is  the  claim  of  a  unique  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father  as  clear  and  as  strong  as  that  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.  And  these  two  claims  imply  all  that  is 
meant  by  the  fourth  Gospel  when  it  speaks  of  a  unique 
union  of  Jesus  and  the  Father.  The  very  conscious- 
ness of  Messiahship,  which  is  as  positive  in  the  Synop- 
tists as  in  John,  implies  a  consciousness  of  an  altogether 
pecuHar  relation  to  the  Father.  Take  the  testimony  that 
came  to  the  soul  of  Jesus  in  the  hour  of  baptism,  *'  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased"  (Mark 
i.  11).  The  Christology  of  the  fourth  Gospel  does  not 
go  beyond  this. 

It  is  true  that  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  alludes  to 
His  preexistence,  and  does  not  in  the  Synoptists,  but  the 
thought  of   preexistence  in   the  fourth  Gospel,  that  is 


392  APPENDIX 

in  the  words  of  Jesus,  is  in  no  sense  a  vital  feature  of 
the  Messiah,  it  appears  incidentally.^  This  point  is  not 
always  recognized.  Holtzmann,^  for  example,  presses 
the  words  of  Jesus  in  John  iii.  ii,  12;  vi.  46;  x.  18, 
and  finds  in  them  also  the  thought  of  preexistence. 
This  view,  however,  is  exegetically  untenable.  Jesus 
never  claims  to  have  been  taught  by  the  Father  before 
He  came  into  the  world.  As  a  rule.  He  uses  the  pres- 
ent tense  when  speaking  of  the  Father's  communica- 
tions to  Him  (John  v.  20,  30;  xiv.  10).  Thus  the 
Father  shows  Him  from  day  to  day  what  He  does,  and 
Jesus  speaks  what  He  sees  and  Jiears  with  the  Father  in 
the  perfect  spiritual  fellowship  which  He  has  with  Him. 

And  moreover,  the  teaching  of  Jesus  that  His  union 
with  the  Father  is  vtorally  conditioned  (e.g.  John  viii. 
29;  XV.  10)  certainly  involves  that  His  unique  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father  was  acquired  in  His  earthly  life. 
Therefore  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that  in  the  words  of 
Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  doctrine  of  preexistence 
appears  otherwise  than  in  an  incidental  manner. 

We  hold  that  the  portrait  of  Christ  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel is  in  fundamental  harmony  with  that  of  the  Synop- 
tists.  But  some  writers^  find  a  repression  of  the  true 
humanity  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  corre- 
sponds to  its  supposed  exaggeration  of  His  divinity. 
This  repression  in  the  matter  of  Christ's  inner  develop- 

1  Comp.  Delff,  Studien  unci  Kritiken,  1892,  p.  99. 

2  Einleitung,  p.  455. 

*  E.g..,  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  p.  455. 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL  393 

ment,  is  seen  also  in  connection  with  the  baptism,  the 
temptation,  the  need  of  prayer,  the  struggle  in  Geth- 
semane,  and  the  sufferings  on  the  cross.  But  if,  when 
one  speaks  of  inner  development,  one  thinks  of  Christ's 
Messianic  consciousness,  then  we  may  reply  that  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  also  there  is  no  evidence  whatever 
that  Jesus  was  more  certain  of  His  Messiahship  at  the 
end  of  His  ministry  than  He  was  at  the  beginning. 
There  was  development  in  the  disciples'  appreJiension 
of  His  Messiahship  in  the  Synoptists  and  also  in  John, 
but  the  Synoptic  narrative  brings  before  us  a  Christ 
who,  from  the  hour  of  His  baptism,  had  a  serene  and 
perfect  assurance  of  His  Messiahship. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  is  not  said  to  have  had  any  significance  for  Jesus 
Himself,  but  to  have  been  a  sign  for  the  Baptist  (John 
I.  32-34);  true  also  that  the  temptation,  the  struggle  in 
Gethsemane,  and  the  cry  of  loneliness  on  the  cross  are 
omitted ;  but  it  is  surely  unjustifiable  to  argue  from  this 
silence  that  the  author  wishes  to  repress  the  humanity 
of  Christ.  These  events  had  been  described  by  the 
Synoptists,  and,  as  a  rule,  the  fourth  Gospel  brings  for- 
ward other  matter  than  is  contained  in  the  first  three. 
But  further,  how  can  this  idea  of  a  repression  of  the 
humanity  of  Jesus  have  any  weight  in  view  of  such  de- 
cided affirmations  as  we  find,  for  example,  in  John  iv.  6, 
where  Jesus  is  represented  as  being  zvcaricd  with  His 
journey;  in  iv.  22,  where  He  joins  Himself  with  the 
Jews  and  says,  "  We  worship  that  which  we  know"  ; 


394  APPENDIX 

in  V.  19,  where  Jesus  explicitly  repudiates  what  the 
Jews  affirm  that  He  claimed,  namely,  equality  with  God. 
He  declares  on  the  contrary  that  He  is  wholly  dependent 
upon  the  Father.  And  what  becomes  of  the  idea  of  a 
repression  of  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  in  view  also  of 
John  viii.  40,  where  Jesus  speaks  of  Himself  as  "  a  maji 
that  hath  told  you  the  truth;"  and  xi.  35,  where  it  is 
said  "rhat  Jesus  zvept;  and  xx.  17,  where  Jesus  says, 
"  My  Father  and  your  Father,  my  God  and  your  God  "  .'' 

These  passages  are  also  a  sufficient  answer  to  the 
point  that  the  Christ  of  the  fourth  Gospel  does  not  be- 
tray a  need  of  prayer  as  does  the  Christ  of  the  Syn- 
optists.  In  support  of  this  objection,  John  xi.  42  is 
cited,  where  Jesus  says  that  His  words  of  thanksgiving 
are  spoken  on  account  of  the  multitude ;  also  xii.  30  and 
xvii.  13.  But  the  first  of  these  passages,  which  alone 
has  even  an  apparent  pertinence,  proves  the  very  oppo- 
site of  what  it  is  thought  to  prove.  For  when  Jesus 
says,  ''  I  knew  that  thou  hearest  me  ahuaysj'  it  is  cer- 
tainly plain  that  He  was  in  the  habit  of  praying. 

He  who  seeks  to  show  that  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  minimizes  the  humanity  of  Jesus  undertakes  a 
large  task,  and  must  discover  a  great  deal  more  and 
better  ev:°dence  than  has  yet  been  adduced  before  his 
assertion,  will  have  any  plausibility. 

Again,  the  essential  trustworthiness  of  that  version 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  which  we  have  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  supported  by  the  twofold  fact  that  in  numer- 
ous points  it  differs  from  the  Synoptic  version,  while  at 


THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL 


395 


the  same  time  its  peculiarities  are  consistent  with  the 
leaching  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptists.  It  has  its  pecu- 
liarities, just  as  we  should  expect  if  the  Gospel  is  from 
an  independent  and  able  source.  The  teaching  of  Jesus 
is  by  no  means  identical  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  or  Mark 
and  Luke.  Still  less  should  we  expect  that  a  man  capa- 
ble of  producing  the  fourth  Gospel,  a  man  of  the  specu- 
lative and  imaginative  power  which  appears  there  and 
in  the  first  epistle  by  the  same  author,  not  to  mention 
the  Apocalypse,  —  that  a  man  of  such  gifts  would  have 
received  the  same  impressions  from  the  Great  Teacher 
which  Peter  received,  or  would  have  emphasized  the 
same  truths.  In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  regarding  Him- 
self, and  regarding  His  Successor  with  His  disciples, 
regarding  the  future  of  His  cause,  and  other  points,  the 
fourth  Gospel  has  peculiarities,  in  some  cases  very 
noteworthy,  but  these  peculiar  features  combine  har- 
moniously with  the  teaching  of  the  Synoptists.  They 
complete  rather  than  mar  the  great  portrait.  This 
proposition  cannot  be  proven  here  in  detail,  but  one  or 
two  illustrations  of  its  provableness  may  appropriately 
be  given. 

Every  thoughtful  reader  of  the  Gospels  is  struck  by 
the  fact  that  while  Jesus,  according  to  the  Synoptists, 
did  not  make  a  pubHc  verbal  claim  to  Messiahship  till 
near  he  close  of  His  ministry,  in  the  fourth  Gospel  we 
have  the  most  outspoken  claim  almost  at  the  beginning 
of  His  pubHc  work.  Furthermore,  this  contrast  is 
heightened  by  the  fact  that  according  to  the  Synoptists 


396  APPENDIX 

there  is  an  effort  on  Christ's  part  to  prevent  the  proc- 
lamation of  Himself  as  the  Messiah.  Thus  He  enjoined 
silence  upon  the  demoniacs  who  addressed  Him  as  the 
Son  of  God  (Mark  i.  34;  iii.  12,  etc.).  Again,  He  in- 
sisted that  those  who  had  witnessed  the  raising  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus  should  not  tell  of  it  (Mark  v.  43), 
and  when  the  apostles  at  Caesarea  Philippi  confessed 
that  they  still  believed  Him  to  be  the  Messiah,  though 
most  people  were  turning  from  him,  He  charged  them 
not  to  make  Him  known  (Matt.  xvi.  20).  Now  these 
representations  seem  to  reveal  a  radical  difference  of  pol- 
icy, if  not  a  radical  difference  in  the  apprehension  of 
His  Messiahship,  but  this  is  not  really  the  case.  There 
are  two  facts  which  must  be  taken  into  consideration. 
First,  it  seems  that  in  Galilee,  the  home  of  the  inflam- 
mable Zealot  party  (see  Acts  v.  37;  Mark  iii.  18),  the 
populace  were  more  readily  moved  to  insurrectionary 
steps  than  in  Judea.  So  in  Galilee  Jesus  forbade  the 
leper,  whom  He  had  healed,  to  tell  of  the  miracle  (Mark 
i.  44) ;  but  across  the  lake,  in  the  semi-Gentile  DecapoHs, 
He  commanded  the  healed  demoniac  to  do  just  what  He 
had  prohibited  in  Galilee  (Mark  v.  19).  So  it  seems  not 
improbable  that  the  Galilean  character  itself  may  account 
in  some  measure  for  the  reserve  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  all 
merely  verbal  claims  to  Messiahship. 

The  second  fact  to  be  taken  into  consideration  is  yet 
more  important.  It  is  true  that,  according  to  the  Synop- 
tists,  the  public  verbal  claim  to  Messiahship  was  made 
late  in  the  ministry,  and  then  not  in  Galilee  but  in  Jer- 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 


397 


usalem ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  Messiahship  was  virtu- 
ally and  fidly  claimed  even  from  the  beginning  of 
Christ's  public  work.  Thus  demoniacs  are  said  to  have 
recognized  Jesus  as  the  Holy  One  of  God,  and  He  did 
not  deny  it  (Mark  i.  24).  He  claimed  authority  to 
forgive  sin  (Mark  ii.  10).  He  said  that  He  was  lord  of 
the  Sabbath  and  greater  than  the  temple  (Mark  ii.  28 ; 
Matt.  xii.  6).  He  claimed  to  be  the  fulfiller  of  the  law 
(Matt.  V.  17).  He  said  that  all  things  had  been  deliv- 
ered unto  Him  by  the  Father  (Matt.  xi.  27).  Thus  it 
appears  that  He  laid  claim  to  Messiahship  from  the 
very  beginning  of  His  ministry  according  to  the  Synop- 
tists  as  well  as  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel. 

In  view  of  this  virtual  claim  to  Messiahship  which 
we  find  at  the  beginning  of  the  Synoptic  narrative,  the 
argument  of  Schiirer^  and  Wendt^  against  the  historical 
character  of  John  i.  33,  34,  loses  much  of  its  force. 

Or  we  may  take  the  doctrine  of  the  parousia.  This 
is  prominent  in  the  Synoptists,  but  does  not  once  clearly 
appear  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  Here  we  have  the  thought 
of  Christ's  spiritual  presence  with  His  disciples ;  but  no 
reference  to  a  future  coming.  There  is,  however,  no 
incongruity  between  the  idea  of  spiritual  presence  and 
the  idea  of  the  parousia,  at  least,  according  to  one  pos- 
sible interpretation  of  that  difficult  term.  The  fourth 
Gospel  rather  supplements  the  Synoptic  teaching.  Both 
ideas  alike  are  involved  in  the  conception  of  Messiah- 
ship.      Jesus,    because    conscious    of   being   the    Mes- 

1  Contemporary  Review,  1 89 1.         ^  /p/^  Lehre  Jesu,No\.  I.  1886. 


398  APPENDIX 

siah,  knew  that  He  should  rise  from  the  dead,  and  that 
in  coming  time  His  cause  would  rise  and  triumph.  He 
knew  also  that  He  should  judge  men.  But  for  the  same 
reason  he  knew  that  His  death  and  removal  from  the 
sight  of  His  disciples  would  not  mean  that  they  were  to 
be  left  orphans.  In  that  case  His  Kingdom  could  not 
continue.  Out  of  the  same  consciousness  of  Messiah- 
ship  in  which  the  conviction  of  a  future  return  was 
rooted,  there  sprang  inevitably  the  conviction  of  a  con- 
tinuation of  vital  contact  between  Him  and  His  disciples, 
to  be  realized  in  His  spiritual  Successor. 

But  this  line  need  not  be  continued  further.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  define  the  position  which  is  taken.  The 
trustworthy  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel's  report  both 
of  the  outward  course  of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  also  of 
His  teaching  is  accepted,  and  accepted  simply  on  criti- 
cal and  historical  grounds. 

While  holding  the  historical  trustworthiness  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  I  would  by  no  means  deny  all  weight  to 
the  objections  which  are  urged  by  such  scholars  as 
Schiirer,  Holtzmann,  and  Jiilicher ;  but  they  do  not 
seem  to  me  to  make  out  a  case.  It  may  be  noticed  in 
passing  that  these  writers  deal  chiefly  with  the  internal 
evidence,  and  they  doubtless  regard  this  as  of  para- 
mount importance.  We  must  not,  however,  undervalue 
the  external  evidence,  or  forget  that  it  has  been  grow- 
ing more  and  more  invincible  from  year  to  year.^ 

1  On  this  phase  of  the  argument  see  especially  Ezra  Abbott,  Critical 
Essays,  i8S8  ;    and  J.  B.  Lightfoot  in  Expositor  for  1 890. 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 


399 


The  historical  trustworthiness  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
does  not  stand  or  fall  with  its  authorship  by  the  Apostle 
John.  The  argument  for  its  composition  by  him  seems 
to  me  stronger  than  the  argument  that  he  did  not  write 
it ;  but  even  though  written  by  a  pupil  of  John,  or  by 
John  the  Presbyter,^  it  does  not  therefore  lose  its  histor- 
ical value. 

There  is  yet  one  objection  which  is  urged  over  and 
over  again,  to  which  I  wish  briefly  to  refer.  It  is  that  the 
Galilean  fisherman,  who  as  late  as  52  a.d.  was  an  apostle 
of  the  circumcision  (Gal.  ii  9),  "a  narrow  legal  Chris- 
tian," could  not  have  developed  into  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  who  is  radically  opposed  to  the  Jewish 
people,  who  thinks  that  an  irrevocable  sentence  of  con- 
demnation has  been  pronounced  upon  them,  who  has  a 
Greek  philosophical  training,  and  whose  world  of  thought 
is  much  more  Hellenistic  than  Jewish.^ 

It  may  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  not 
safe  to  say  that  John  might  not  have  become  the  author 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  because  he  was  at  first  a  Galilean 
fisherman.  The  town  of  Nazareth  was  also  in  Galilee, 
and  one  might  as  well  expect  great  things  from  a  fisher- 
man as  from  a  carpenter.  Then  we  plainly  have  no 
right  to  say  that  John  was  a  narrow  legal  Christian  in 
52  A.D.     It  is  true  that  he  was  an  apostle  unto  the 

1  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Litteratur,  1897,  P-  ^77»  ^"" 
dines  to  this  view. 

2  See  Schiirer  in  Contemporary  Review,  1891  ;  Holtzmann's  Einlei' 
tung,  pp.  468-470  ;   and  Jiilicher's  Einleitung,  p.  255. 


400  APPENDIX 

Jews,  with  James  and  Peter,  but  he  had  taken  part  in 
receiving  the  Samaritans,  who  were  esteemed  as  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  Peter,  with  whom  he  was  associated,  had  pre- 
ceded Paul  in  welcoming  the  Gentiles  to  the  faith.  He, 
with  James  and  Peter,  gave  the  right  hand  of  fellowship 
to  Paul,  thus  indorsing  his  work  among  the  Gentiles. 
From  the  fact  that  he  regarded  himself  as  providentially 
set  apart  to  the  work  among  the  Jews,  we  cannot  infer 
that  his  Christianity  was  narrow.  Therefore  we  cannot 
say  positively  that  an  extraordinary  change  must  have 
taken  place  in  John  between  52  a.d.  and  about  90  a.d., 
if  he  was  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  We  simply 
do  not  know  how  catholic  he  was  in  52  a.d. 

As  regards  the  author's  way  of  speaking  of  the  Jews, 
it  is  explained  by  the  judgment  of  God  upon  the  Jewish 
people  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  according  to  the 
prophecy  of  Jesus.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  had  been 
taken  from  them  and  had  been  given  to  the  Gentiles 
(Mark  xii.  9).  There  is  nothing,  however,  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  to  indicate  that  the  author  regarded  their  future 
as  wholly  without  hope. 

Finally,  ''  the  philosophical  training  "  manifested  by 
the  author  is  rather  imaginary  than  real.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  even  the  Prologue  of  the  fourth  Gospel  presup- 
poses any  such  training  on  the  part  of  the  author.  The 
conception  of  the  Logos  has,  perhaps,  better  roots  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  than  it 
has  in  Philo.  It  is  quite  true  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
there  is  "  a  primary  and  fundamental  contrast "  between 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL  4OI 

the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  kmgdom  of  the  world, 
between  God  and  the  devil,  between  light  and  darkness, 
and  truth  and  falsehood.  But  that  fundamental  con- 
trast is  as  old  as  the  oldest  Scripture,  and  did  not  need 
to  be  borrowed  from  Gnostic  philosophers.  And  by 
whom  was  it  the  more  probable  that  this  contrast  would 
be  deeply  felt  and  positively  expressed,  —  by  one  who  had 
long  companied  with  Jesus  Christ  and  had  caught  His 
spirit,  or  by  Gnostic  philosophers,  before  whose  eyes 
Jesus,  the  revealer  of  God,  was  a  hazy  and  half-divine 
being } 

This  Gospel  which,  as  Lightfoot  says,  is  thoroughly 
saturated  with  the  Messianic  ideas  of  the  time  of  Jesus, 
this  Gospel  whose  portrait  of  Christ  is  in  fundamental 
accord  with  that  of  the  Synoptists,  whose  narrative, 
though  plainly  independent  of  the  Synoptists,  is  as 
plainly  self-consistent  and  self-legitimating, — this  Gospel 
is  not,  I  think,  appreciatively  judged  when  it  is  regarded 
as  "  a  philosophical  fiction,  with  religious  tendency, 
dating  from  the  third  Christian  generation,"  or  regarded 
as  an  idealization  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  blended 
with  the  development  of  the  Christian  Church  through 
the  first  century  of  its  history. 

And  who,  we  may  ask  with  Beyschlag,  in  conclusion, 
who  is  the  wondrous  stranger  of  the  second  century, 
who,  untouched  by  any  of  its  weaknesses,  towered  a 
full  head  above  all  the  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  of  his 
time,  and  nevertheless,  personally  considered,  remained 
absolutely  unknown  ? 

2D 


402  APPENDIX 

Had  there  lived  in  the  second  century  a  man  capable 
of  producing  the  fourth  Gospel,  we  should  doubtless 
find  abundant  personal  traces  of  him.  But  we  know 
the  great  men  of  that  century,  and  know  that  there  was 
not  among  them  one  who  distantly  approached  the 
mental  stature  of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 


4.    The  Gospel  outside  the  Gospels 

If  our  New  Testament  began  with  the  Book  of  Acts, 
we  could  still  form  a  tolerably  complete  outUne  of  the 
life  of  Jesus.  It  is  true  that  the  great  evidence  of  the 
New  Testament  writings  from  Acts  onward  is  evidence 
which  firmly  establishes  the  fact  that  beneath  them  and 
behind  them  a  new  and  divine  force  had  come  into  the 
world  through  a  certain  Jesus ;  and  yet  they  contain  a 
good  many  specific  references  to  points  in  the  life  of 
Jesus,  some  of  them  incidental  in  character,  others 
introduced  as  being  of  fundamental  significance.  A 
large  part  of  these  references  are  earlier  than  the 
earliest  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  It  is  therefore  the 
more  important  that  we  notice  the  outline  of  this 
earliest   Gospel. 

It  includes  the  following  points :  Jesus  was  born  of 
the  seed  of  David  (Rom.  i.  3);  His  mother's  name  was 
Mary  (Acts  i.  14);  He  had  several  brothers  (i  Cor. 
ix.  5),  one  of  whom  bore  the  name  James  (Gal.  i.  19); 
and  He  was  in  body  and  spirit  a  true  man  (Rom.  i.  3, 
4;  Phil.  ii.  7;   I  Tim.  ii.  5;  iii.  16;  Heb.  iv.   15,  etc.). 


THE  GOSPEL  OUTSIDE  THE   GOSPELS  403 

He  was  heralded  by  John  the  Baptist,  who  declared 
himself  unworthy  to  loose  the  shoes  of  the  coming  One 
(Acts  xiii.  25),  and  who  prepared  His  way  by  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance  (Acts  xiii.  24).  The  ministry  of 
Jesus  began  in  the  days  of  the  Baptist  (Acts  i.  22),  and 
was  spent  in  the  country  of  the  Jews  and  in  Jerusalem 
(Acts  X.  39),  an  important  part  of  it  being  spent  in 
Galilee  (Acts  xiii.  31).  This  ministry  was  primarily 
for  the  Jews  (Rom.  xv.  8).  Jesus  was  anointed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  (Acts  x.  38)  at  the  time  of  His  baptism 
(i.  John  V.  6).  He  gathered  around  Him  a  company 
of  disciples  which  at  His  death  numbered  more  than 
five  hundred  (i  Cor.  xv.  6),  and  appointed  twelve  to  be 
apostles  (i  Cor.  xv.  5),  whose  names  are  given  (Acts 
i.  13,  16).  His  life  was  marked  by  mighty  works  and 
wonders  and  signs  which  God  wrought  by  Him  (Acts 
ii.  22).  He  went  about  doing  good,  healing  all  who 
were  oppressed  of  the  devil  (Acts  x.  38),  and  the  manifest 
aim  of  His  life  was  to  destroy  the  devil's  works  (i  John 
iii.  8).  He  was  a  poor  man  (2  Cor.  viii.  9;  Phil.  ii.  7), 
meek  and  gentle  in  manner  (2  Cor.  x.  i). 

He  was  a  holy  man  (i  Cor.  xv.  3  ;  i  Pet.  ii.  22,  23), 
a  living  condemnation  of  all  sin,  and  so  unlike  the  law's 
condemnation  which  consisted  in  a  dead  letter  (Rom. 
viii.  3).  And  yet  He  was  tempted  as  other  men 
(Heb.  iv.  15),  and  was  made  perfect  through  sufferings 
(Heb.  ii.  10).  He  was  the  manifestation  of  the  love  of 
God  (i  John  iv.  9;  Eph.  iii.  19;  v.  2),  and  as  such  He 
pleased  not  Himself  (Rom.  xv.  3),  but  was  the  servant 


404  APPENDIX 

of  Others,  teaching  that  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than 
to  receive  (Acts  xx.  35),  and  at  last  He  gave  Himself 
a  ransom  for  all  (i  Tim.  ii.  5,  6).  He  was  a  faithful 
witness  (Rev.  i.  5),  the  sum  of  whose  message  was  that 
God  is  light  (i  John  i.  5),  and  His  teaching  was  such 
that  it  became  law  to  His  followers  (Gal.  vi.  2 ;  Col. 
iii.  16).  The  sum  of  His  ethics  for  His  disciples  was 
that  they  should  love  each  other  (i  John  iv.  21). 

Sometime  in  His  earthly  life,  on  a  certain  mountain, 
His  disciples  had  been  granted  a  singular  manifestation 
of  His  glory,  and  had  received  divine  assurance  that 
He  was  the  Christ  (2  Peter  i.  16-18).  At  last  He  was 
betrayed  to  the  rulers  by  Judas,  an  apostle  (Acts 
xiii.  27;  i.  16).  The  Jews  condemned  Him  to  death  in 
Jerusalem  (Acts  iv.  27;  xiii.  27).  He  was  afterward 
brought  before  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate  (Acts  iv.  27), 
and  Pilate  was  determined  to  release  Him  (Acts  iii.  1 3), 
but  failed,  as  the  Jews  asked  that  a  murderer  be 
granted  to  them  instead  of  Jesus  (Acts  iii.  14).  No 
cause  of  death  was  found  in  Him  (Acts  xiii.  28),  but 
yet  He  was  crucified  outside  the  city,  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  participating  in  His  death  (Heb.  xiii.  12;  Acts 
iv.  27 ;  ii.  23). 

In  the  night  of  His  betrayal.  He  instituted  a 
supper  for  His  disciples,  giving  them  bread  as  a 
symbol  of  His  body,  and  wine  as  a  symbol  of  His 
blood,  and  He  asked  them  to  keep  this  supper  in 
memory  of  Him  (i.  Cor.  xi.  23-26).  When  death  was 
approaching,  He  prayed  in  an  agony  that  He  might  be 


THE   GOSPEL  OUTSIDE  THE   GOSPELS  405 

delivered  from  it,  but  thoug'h  He  was  heard,  His  spe- 
cific request  was  not  granted,  and  He  was  perfected  as  a 
Redeemer,  through  suffering  (Heb.  v.  7-9).  Through 
these  words  we  can  see  the  entire  scene  in  Gethsemane 
as  described  by  the  evangeUsts. 

When  Jesus  had  expired  on  the  cross,  His  body- 
was  taken  down  and  laid  in  a  tomb  (Acts  xiii.  29 ; 
I  Cor.  XV.  4).  On  the  third  day  He  rose,  or  was  raised 
by  God  ( I  Thess.  iv.  14;  i  Cor.  xv.  4;  2  Cor.  iv.  14, 
etc.),  and  through  many  days  (Acts  xiii.  31)  or  forty 
days  (Acts  i.  3),  He  was  manifested  to  chosen  witnesses, 
who  were  largely  Galileans  (Acts  x.  41;  xiii.  31). 
Of  these  appearances  at  least  five  are  particularized,  — 
one  to  Peter,  one  to  James,  two  to  all  the  apostles,  and 
one  to  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once  (i  Cor. 
XV.  5-7).  When  this  statement  was  written,  both  Peter 
and  James  were  alive,  and,  as  far  as  we  know,  all  the 
other  apostles,  with  the  exception  of  James,  the  brother 
of  John;  and  of  the  five  hundred,  the  majority  were 
still  living.  This  Risen  One  showed  Himself  alive  by 
many  proofs  (Acts  i.  3).  He  spoke  with  His  disciples, 
and  they  ate  and  drank  with  Him  (Acts  x.  41  ;  i.  3). 
He  told  them  that  they  should  soon  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  should  be  His  witnesses 
unto  the  end  of  the  earth ;  and  then  He  was  taken 
up  (Acts  i.  9),  or  was  received  up  (Acts  i.  22),  or 
He  ascended  (Eph.  iv.   10). 

In  this  mass  of  specific  information,  much  of  it 
earlier  than  any  one  of  our  canonical  Gospels,  there  is 


406  APPENDIX 

nothing  which  is  at  variance  with  the  detailed  accounts 
of  the  evangelists.  There  are  some  notable  omissions,  — 
for  example,  the  omission  of  any  reference  to  the 
supernatural  conception  of  Jesus ;  and  there  are  some 
notable  additions,  as  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord 
to  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once :  but  still 
the  outline  contained  in  these  references,  which  are 
drawn  from  various  writers,  some  of  whom  were  eye- 
witnesses and  some  not,  is  in  remarkable  agreement 
with  the  outline  of  the  Gospels,  and  offers  strong  sub- 
stantiation of  their  account  of  the  essential  facts  in 
the  life  of  Jesus  Christ. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


Anna,  witness  of,  28. 
Annas,  Jesus  before,  281-283. 
Apostles,  appointment,  134-135. 

number,  135-137. 

purpose  of  appointment,  137-138. 

mission,  149-155. 

return  to  Jesus,  163-164. 

journey  with  Jesus,  178-180. 

tested,  185-192. 

ambition  rebuked,  200-202,  232. 

feet  washed,  262-264. 
Appearances  of  the  risen  Lord,  320- 

330- 
Arrest  of  Jesus,  278-281. 
Ascension  of  Jesus,  332-334. 
Augustus,  the  census  of,  14-15. 
Authority,  the  question  of,  245-247. 

Baptism  of  Jesus,  45-56. 

by  Jesus,  101-103. 
Bethany,  friends  of  Jesus  in,  225-226. 

feast  in,  233-236. 
Bethesda,  sign,  157-160. 
Birth  of  Jesus,  the  place,  12-19. 

the  date,  19-24. 
Blind  man  healed  in  Jerusalem,  211- 

213. 
Brothers  of  Jesus,  7-9,  35-36. 

their  opposition  to  Jesus,  141-142. 

last  conversation  with,  202-203. 
Burial  of  Jesus,  309-310. 

Csesarea  Phihppi,  in    the    region   of, 

187-197. 
Cana,  wedding  in,  84-90. 

second  visit  in,  111-H2. 
Capernaum,  first  visit  in,  90-91. 

second  visit  in,  112-129. 

third  visit  in,  130-143. 

synagogue  address  in,  173-174. 
Centurion  of  Capernaum,  139-140. 
Children,  treatment  of,  202,  220-221. 
Chronology  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  72-78. 


Circumcision  of  Jesus,  26-28. 
Coin  in  fish's  mouth,  198-200. 
ComraandiDcnt,  the  greatest,  250. 
Conception  of  Jesus,  2-11. 
Criticism  of  sources,  335-337. 
Cross,  words  from,  301-304. 
Crucifixion  of  Jesus,  298-301. 

Darkness  on  day  of  crucifixion,  304. 

David's  son,  250-251. 

Death    and    resurrection    announced, 

190-192,  197-198,  231. 
Death  of  Jesus,  307-308. 
Decapolis,  work  in,  180-185. 
Demoniac  possession,  1 17-123. 
Disciples,  the  first,  80-84. 

call  of  four,  112-114. 

call  of  Levi,  131-132. 

mission  of  seventy,  150-153,  217-218. 
Divorce,  question  of,  218-220. 

Early  life  of  Jesus,  record  of,  1-2. 
Earthquake  at  death  of  Jesus,  306-307. 

at  resurrection,  316-317. 
Education  of  Jesus,  the  home  circle, 

33-37. 

the  study  of  the  law,  37-40. 

the  study  of  nature,  40-41. 

the  study  of  man,  41-44. 
Egypt,  flight  to,  31-32. 
Enrolment  under  Quirinius,  14-19. 
Entry  into  Jerusalem,  236-241. 
Ephraim,  Jesus  in,  229. 

Fig  tree,  the  barren,  242-244. 

Galilee,  early  ministry  in,  no-155. 

later  ministry  in,  163-203. 

tours  in,  129-130, 149-150,  174-178. 

last  incidents  in,  197-203. 
Genealogy  of  Jesus,  6-7. 
Gerasene  demoniac,  144-146. 
Gethsemane,  273-278. 


407 


4o8 


INDEX  OF   SUBTECTS 


Golgotha,  procession  to,  297-298. 
Gospel  outside  the  Gospels,  402-406. 

Healing  the  sick,  123-129. 
Herod  baffled,  31-32. 
Herodians,  132. 

Jacob's  well,  105-109. 
Jairus"  daughter,  146-148. 
Jericho,  Jesus  at,  229-231. 
Jerusalem,  at  feast  of  Purim,  156-162. 

last  labors  for,  204-215. 

at  feast  of  Dedication,  214-215. 
last  journey  to,  229-231. 
John,  Gospel  of,  383-402. 

narratives  in  Gospel,  384-389. 

discourses  in  Gospel,  390-402. 
John  the  Baptist,  45-48. 

arrest  of,  104-105. 
Judas,  choice  of,  136 

departure  fiom  upper  chamber,  264- 
265. 

death  of,  296-297. 
Judea,  early  ministry  in,  92-103. 

Knowledge  of  Jesus  supernatural,  83- 
84,  107,  226. 

Last  days,  233. 

public  teaching,  244-245. 

words  to  disciples,  269-273. 
Lazarus  raised,  226-229. 

Magi,  28-31. 

Mary  and  the  record  of  Jesus'  birth,  8. 

opposition  to  Jesus,  141-142. 
Ministry  of  Jesus,  length  of,  67-71. 

beginning  of,  80-91. 
Miracles,  87-90,  127-129,  147-148, 
Multitudes  fed,  five  thousand,  165-169. 

four  thousand,  180-183. 

Nicodemus,  98-101. 

Parables,  biographical  hints  in,  142-143. 
Passover,  the  last,  255-265. 
Perea,  ministry  in,  216-224. 
Peter,  contession  of,  187-190. 

denial  of,  283-286. 
Pharisees,  at  meat  with,  160-162. 

condemnation  of,  176-178,  251-252. 


Presentation  of  Jesus,  26-28. 
Purim,  feast  of,  156-162. 

Resurrection,  question  of,  248-249. 

of  Jesus,  317-320. 

objective  reality  of,  330-332. 
Ruler,  the  young,  221-222. 

Sabbath,  works  on,  132-133,  158,  213. 
Samaria,  Jesus  in,  105-109,  205-206. 
Scribes,  opposition  of,  140-141. 

warnings  against,  251-252. 
Sealing  the  tomb,  310-313. 
Shepherds,  the,  24-26. 
Simeon's  testimony,  27-28. 
Son  of  man,  131. 

Sources  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  335-406. 
Spirit,  His  descent  upon  Jesus,  50-56. 

successor  of  Jesus,  272-273. 
Star  of  Magi,  22,  29-31. 
Storm  on  the  lake,  143-144. 
Supper,  the  Lord's,  266-269, 
Sychar,  104-109. 
S}Tioptic  Gospels,  problem  of,  337-342. 

present  state  of  discussion  of,  342-344, 

solution  of  problem  of,  344-379. 

historicity  of,  379-383. 
Syrophcenician  woman,  179-180. 

Tabernacles,  to  the  feast  of,  204-207. 
Teaching  of  Jesus,  114-116. 
Temple  cleansed,  93-95. 

sign  of,  95-97. 

prophecy  concerning,  253-255. 
Temptation  of  Jesus,  data  of,  57-60. 

form  of,  60-62. 

content  of,  62-65. 

through  life,  65-66. 
Topography  of  life  of  Jesus,  78-79. 
Transfiguration  of  Jesus,  192-196. 
Trial  of  Jesus,  by  Sanhedrin,  286-289. 

by  Pilate,  289-291,  293-296. 

by  Herod  Antipas,  291-293. 
Tribute,  question  of,  247-248. 

Veil  of  temple  rent,  304-306. 

Walking  on  the  lake,  169-173. 
Women  at  the  tomb,  314-317. 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES  FROM  THE  GOSPELS^ 


MATTHEW 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

VII. 

24 

139 

I.  I-I7,  16,  18 

6 

VIII 

5 

179 

18 

7 

5-13 

125 

139 

19,  19-21,  24 

33 

10 

139 

18-25 

2 

II,  12 

140 

20 

37 

13,  16 

124 

22.23 

10 

14,  IS,  16-17 

123 

25 

36 

19,  20,  21,  22 

223 

II.  I 

12,  19 

31 

118 

I-I2 

28 

32 

145 

4 

282 

IX 

9 

131 

7-8,  16-18 

31 

14 

132 

14,  21-22 

33 

15 

133 

16 

13.  22,  30 

18-26 

147 

22 

2 

28 

126 

127 

23 

13 

32 

117 

119 

III.  I 

59 

35 

124 

149 

4 

60 

37 

149 

11 

102 

X 

153 

II,  12 

99 

I 

119 

12 

46,81 

5 

109 

13-17 

48 

5-6 

135 

14 

80 

10 

154 

14.17 

47 

17-38 

176 

15 

49.  SO.  54.  55 

24,  27,  32-33 

"5 

IV.  i-ii 

57 

29 

40 

3 

199 

32 

120 

3.4 

62 

XI. 

2-6,  II 

47 

5-7 

64 

4.5 

lOI 

8-10 

65 

5 

128 

12 

75. 92.  103, 

los 

6 

187 

23 

124, 

129 

XL 

9-11 

80 

V.  I,  13,  14 

138. 

139 

11 

3 

17 

108, 

139 

14 

48 

44.45 

41 

18 

45 

VI.  13 

59 

20-24 

176 

184 

26,  28-30 

40 

28 

175 

VII.  8 

116 

XII 

2 

132 

15,  16-21,  24-26 

42 

6 

79 

199 

1  The  passages  cited  in  the  Appendix  are  not  included. 
409 


4IO 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XII.  9.  lo 

114 

XVIII. 

10 

34.  202 

9-14 

132 

XIX 

17 

22                 117, 

119,   120,   140 

I 

153. 204 

27 

140 

3-12 

219 

28          84,  125, 

141,  144,  228 

4.  5.  9. 

13-15 

220 

38-42 

185 

16-26, 

17 

221 

38-45,  46-50 

141 

XX 

1-16 

42,  223 

39-40 

190 

17-19 

191.  231 

XIII.  I 

114 

17,29 

204 

19.38 

41 

20 

232 

33.44 

42 

XXI 

I 

233 

47-50 

42,  143 

1.3.7 

238 

53-58 

149 

9 

237.  239 

55 

33.  34,  36 

10,  14 

240 

XIV.  I,  12,  13 

164 

13 

93 

14.  17 

165 

15,  16 

241 

23 

169 

18 

242 

28-31 

172 

19,  28- 

32.  33-46 

243 

33 

173 

23 

114,  282 

34-36 

175 

23-27, 

31.32 

246 

36 

124 

XXII. 

1-14 

243 

XV.  1-20 

176 

15-22 

247 

12,13 

177 

23-33 

248 

21 

78 

34.35 

249 

21-28,  24 

179 

41 

250 

29 

114 

XXIII. 

42.94 

30 

124 

1-12,  13-31 

251 

30-31 

180 

32,  33. 35.  36,  37-39 

252 

32-39 

181 

37 

68 

39 

183 

XXIV 

-XXV. 

253 

XVI.  4 

185 

XXIV. 

I 

252 

5-12 

186 

29-31. 

36,  39,  42 

254 

9,  10 

182 

XXV 

31-46 

42 

13. 14. 15 

187 

XXVI. 

6-13 

235 

14 

46,  129 

14-16 

236 

17 

188 

14-16, 

20 

261 

18 

83. 189 

17,  18 

260 

19 

189 

21 

26s 

21 

190 

23 

263 

23 

136 

26-29 

266 

24.25 

192 

28 

267 

XVII.  7,8 

193 

30-35 

269 

12,  13 

196 

32 

321,  329,  332 

14-20 

197 

39-46, 

40 

274 

22,  23 

191 

41 

275 

24.  25 

198 

47 

278 

XVIII.  1-14 

20O 

48-50 

279 

INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


411 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XXVI.  SI,  S3,  56 

280 

I 

19. 20, 29 

90 

58 

280,  284 

20 

137 

60,61 

96 

21,  22 

114 

XXVII.  I 

289 

23 

117 

1.3 

286 

23.  34 

118 

8 

296 

24 

120 

19 

289,  293 

29-31.  32-34 

123 

24 

295 

30.  34.  41. 

42 

124 

26 

293 

34 

100,  119,  124 

32 

297 

34.  39 

117 

37.48 

299 

35.  37.  38.  39.  40-45 

129 

40 

96 

42 

125 

40.  41-43 

300 

43 

227 

46 

301 

44 

146 

45.  47-49.  55. 

56          302 

45 

130 

45.51 

304 

II 

.  i-III.  12 

130 

50 

303.  307 

5 

127,  131 

51-53 

306 

10,  II 

124 

55 

107 

10,  19,  25 

28 

133 

56.61 

314 

14 

131.  135 

57 

309 

15.  16, 17 

18,24 

132 

61.62 

310 

16, 17 

230 

62 

3" 

18-22 

177 

62-66 

310 

20 

190 

65-66 

331 

21,  22 

42 

XXVIII.  I 

314 

23-28 

94 

2-4 

316 

27 

66 

5.6.8 

318 

III 

I,  5.  10 

124 

6 

319 

2,6 

132 

7 

329 

4.  7-12,  8, 

9 

133 

9 

107,  321,  322 

5 

125 

13 

313 

6 

158 

16-20 

328 

11' 
12 

117,  120 
100, 122,  146 

MARK 

13 

134 

1.3.8 

102 

14 

134.  137 

4 

46 

20 

130 

6 

45 

20,  22,  23- 

-26,  28-30 

140 

9-11 

48 

21 

36,  203 

9. 12. 14 

78 

21.31 

35.91 

12 

54.58 

21,  27,  31-35 

141 

12-13 

57 

22 

119,  129 

13 

2 

27 

66 

13.  14 

92 

35 

142 

14 

75.  103 

IV 

10,  II,  12, 

13.  34.  35 

142 

16,  17,  19 

112 

13-20. 35, 

38 

143 

19 

135 

16-30 

III 

412 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

IV.  27 

41 

VII 

•  19 

178 

35.38 

130 

24 

138. 174 

,178 

V.  1-20 

180,  217 

24-30, 31 

179 

2 

117 

25 

117 

5 

158 

3I-VIII.  12 

217 

7 

120 

32 

124 

,126 

8 

122 

32-36 

180 

13.  17, 18 

145 

33.34 

125 

14 

144 

36 

180 

17,  18,  21 

143 

VIII 

I 

180 

17.  19 

146 

I-IO, 2 

181 

21-43,25-34 

147 

5-32,  14-30 

253 

23.  35.  36,  38,  39.  40-42 

148 

10,  II 

183 

24 

147 

II,  13,  22,  23,  26 

184 

25 

124 

12 

305 

27 

125 

13,22 

185 

34 

126 

14.  14-31 

186 

40 

94.  100 

19,20 

182 

VI.  2 

38 

22 

78, 124,  126 

2,3 

39.  149 

22-25 

126 

3 

33. 

34.  36.  85 

23 

124 

5 

126,  158 

27 

138 

6,1-6 

149 

27,  28,  29 

187 

7 

122 

,  137.  152 

31.32 

190 

7-13 

153 

32 

81 

8,  9.  10.  34 

154 

33 

66 

13 

118,  119 

34 

42 

14 

187 

34-35.  38 

192 

14.  30.  31.  33 

164 

35 

97 

17 

104 

34.  35.  38 

30s 

19 

178 

IX 

•  I.  30-33 

192 

27,28 

292 

5.6.7.8 

193 

30 

155 

9,  II,  12 

196 

30-32 

75.78 

10 

232 

33.  34.  38 

165 

14-29,  30,  31,  33 

197 

43 

166,  239 

18 

119 

45.46 

169 

20,38 

118 

45-53 

90 

21,  25 

120 

48 

170,  171 

25 

117, 122 

51-52 

173 

30-32 

191 

52 

183 

30,  34.  35 

201 

53-56 

175 

32 

81 

56 

124,  125 

33 

232,  263 

VII.  I 

161 

,  178, 184 

33-50 

200 

1-23 

176 

35 

189 

I,  24,  31 

78 

36 

34 

5. 10-13, 17 

177 

38-41 

202 

INDEX   OF  PASSAGES 


413 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

IX.  42 

42 

XIV 

12,  13,  13-15 

260 

X.  I 

76,  153 

,217 

12-17 

241 

1, 32, 46 

204 

12,  18,  26, 

43 

25s 

I-4S 

n 

17. 51. 52 

262 

2-12 

219 

20 

263 

6-8,  9, 

13-16 

220 

22-25 

266 

13-16 

34 

24 

267 

17-27 

221 

26-31 

269 

22,  29, 

30 

222 

28 

320 

321,  329,  332 

32-34 

191 

35,  36,  38. 

47.50 

275 

32-34.  47.  48,  52 

231 

33.  34.  35-42.  37,  41      274 

35-37. 

38-40 

232 

43 

278 

38 

276 

47.50 

280 

43-45 

263 

50 

3IS 

46-XI 

I 

233 

53.54 

280 

52 

124,  126 

54 

283,  284 

XL  I,  3 

238 

57.58 

96 

9 

237 

62 

100 

10 

239 

64 

288 

II 

241 

65 

289 

12,  13, 

14,20 

242 

XV 

.  I 

286,  287,  289 

14 

243 

I,  24,  42 

255 

18 

244 

8-9,  10,  II 

.IS 

293 

27-33 

47 

,246 

15 

294 

30 

49 

16 

289 

XII.  1-12 

243 

21 

259.  297 

13-17 

247 

21,  46 

256 

16, 17 

42 

25 

298 

18-27 

248 

29 

96,  298 

24 

249 

36 

299 

28,34 

250 

29,  30,  31. 

32 

300 

37.  38- 

40 

251 

33.38 

304 

38,  39,  41-44 

252 

34 

301 

XIII.  I 

252 

35.  36.  40 

302 

2.5,9,13,23,24-27, 

37 

303 

30,32 

253 

37.44 

307 

32 

254 

39 

308 

2,  30,  24-27 

254 

41 

137 

XIV.  I,  2 

242 

42 

260 

1, 10, 18 

265 

43 

309 

2 

158,  278 

46 

260,  309 

44.45 

279 

47 

310,  311 

3 

161 

XVI 

.  I 

310,  314 

3-9 

162 

234 

2 

316 

6.9 

235 

3 

3" 

10,  II 

236 

5-6.8 

318 

10,  II, 

17 

261 

6.7 

319 

414 


INDEX   OF  PASSAGES 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XVI.  7 

329 

IV 

38,39 

123 

9-20 

332 

39 
40 

125.  144 
124 

LUKE 

40-41 

123 

1.4 

5 

V 

i-ii 

42,  113 

5 

23 

13 

65 

6, 17, 26, 36, 39, 67-79, 76,  80  45 

15-16 

130 

26-38 

2 

27 

131 

27-32. 

69 

37 

29,33 

132 

31 

26 

35 

133 

35 

53 

VI 

I 

140 

46-55 

34 

2,  6-13 

132 

II.  I 

15 

12 

135 

1-3 

13 

13 

134 

4 

12 

13 

152 

7 

18,36 

17,  20-49,  47 

138 

8-10 

24 

19 

124 

15.20 

25 

20-23,  27-29 

139 

17.  21, 

22,24 

26 

VII 

2-10,  5,  9,  20-23 

139 

19.51 

8.35 

10 

140 

22,  33,  41 

35 

11-17 

149 

25-35 

27 

21 

118 

27-33> 

41.  43.  48 

5 

22 

124 

36-38. 

39 

28 

29-30 

246 

40,52 

37 

36-50 

161 

42 

33 

37.  38.  39-49.  47,  5© 

162 

49 

53.56 

VIII 

2 

117 

III.  1-23 

20,73 

6-9 

42 

9,  10-14,  15 

46 

19-21 

141 

17 

81 

32 

145 

21 

50 

40 

146 

21-23 

48 

40-56,  46 

147 

23-38 

6 

42 

148 

IV.  I 

59 

IX 

I,  2 

137 

1-13 

57 

1-6 

153 

3.4 

62 

7.  9.  10 

164 

5-8 

65 

10 

75 

9-12 

64 

13 

165 

13.14 

92 

18 

187 

14 

75 

18,  23-24,  27,  28 

192 

16,  20 

114 

22 

190 

16-30 

m.  149 

31.  33.  34 

193 

19 

67 

32 

195 

22,  23, 

27 

149 

37-43 

197 

29 

150 

43-45 

191 

30 

44 

46-48 

201 

33 

117 

49-50 

202 

INDEX  OF   PASSAGES 


415 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

IX.  51 

77,  151,  204 

XVIII 

18-30 

221 

52 

105 

31 

n,  204 

52,  S3. 54,  56 

205 

31-34 

191, 231 

57.  58,  59.  60 

223 

34 

81 

X. 

150,  151,  153 

35 

229 

1-12,  17 

218 

XIX 

.    I-IO 

230 

13-16 

176 

i-io,  12 

42 

17 

118,  217 

5 

229 

18 

62 

28,  29 

234 

20 

122 

29.31 

238 

33 

106,  206 

37.  41-44 

239 

38-42 

n.  225 

39.40 

240 

51 

151 

41-44 

227 

XL  I 

140 

48 

244 

4,20 

228 

XX 

1-8 

246 

20 

84, 125, 141 

9-18 

243 

24-26,  29-32 

141 

20-26 

247 

29-32 

185 

27-38 

248 

30 

191 

XXI 

1-4 

252, 346 

XII.  28 

228 

5.  8-36 

253 

49-53 

217 

28 

254 

50 

276 

38 

244 

XIII.  I,  4 

42 

XXII 

3-6 

236 

6 

242 

3-6,  14 

261 

6-9.  24-30.  32 

217 

8,  9, 10-12 

260 

7 

70 

14 

262 

10-17 

132 

15-20 

266 

11,13 

124 

18 

268 

15 

133 

31-34 

269 

22 

204 

19 

267 

31 

186 

21 

264, 265 

31.  32.  33 

224 

24-26 

263 

31-33 

n 

28 

66 

34 

68 

39-46,  34,  44 

274 

34.35 

252 

46 

275 

XIV.  1-6 

132 

47 

278 

1-24 

161 

47-48 

279 

2 

124 

50,51 

280 

iS-24 

243 

51 

124 

24 

217 

54 

280 

28-33 

176 

54.66 

284 

XV.  3^ 

42 

61 

28S 

XVI.  I-I2,  19-31 

223 

66 

286 

XVII.  11-19 

^^,  206 

XXIII. 

1 

289 

14 

124 

2 

290 

14. 19 

126 

5 

291 

XVIII.  15-17 

220 

8-12,  II 

292 

4i6 


INDEX   OF  PASSAGES 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XXIII.  26,  27,  28- 

31 

297 

II 

4 

86 

35.39 

300 

6 

89 

34.  43.  46 

301 

II 

85.87 

44.45 

304 

12 

85,91 

46 

303.  307 

13-IV.3 

92 

47 

308 

14-16 

93 

50-51 

309 

16 

97 

54 

315 

17 

94 

56 

256, 

260,  314 

18,  19 

95 

56-XXIV 

I 

310 

19 

190,  191 

XXIV.  I,  10 

314 

20 

21 

5.6,9 

318 

21,  22 

96 

6,  7.  8.  9 

320 

23 

98,  210,  258 

13-31.  32.  33.  34 

323 

23-25 

loi,  229 

29-42,  49 

325 

24 

109 

31.51 

332 

III 

I 

288 

33 

1B9, 

324.  326 

I,  2 

98,  309 

34 

194 

2 

94.  128 

34.  36-43 

324 

5,  13-15,  16 

99 

49-50 

330 

8 

41 

50-53 

329 

27-30 
22 

48 
78 

JOHN 

22,25 
22-26 

X02 

49 

I.  19-27 

46 

23,26 

102 

19,29 

73 

26 

103 

19-39 

81 

IV 

I 

103,  104 

26,33 

47 

I,  2 

102 

28 

102 

2 

49 

28.  32.  33 

49 

3.35 

73 

29 

78 

3.43 

78 

29-34 

80 

8,27 

106 

29-35 

58 

9.43 

109 

29.  36,  37 

48 

21 

97.  108 

32-33 

51 

25-26 

108 

33 

52 

26 

100 

34.  39.  41. 

42 

82 

39-42,  40 

206 

41 

84,  100 

45.  46,  48 

III 

42 

188 

46 

84,  127 

42.  47»  48, 

49, 

50,51 

83 

46-53 

125 

44 

82,  90,  135 

47.49 

140 

45,49 

100 

50.52 

112 

SI 

62 

V. 

156 

I 

84 

I           70,71.75.78. 

143,  154,  206 

1, 12,  13 

70,73 

1-47 

75 

1. 12,  23 

78 

2-9 

157 

3.4 

35 

10,  13,  18,  19-47 

158 

INDEX   OF   PASSAGES 


417 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

V.  18 

178 

VIII 

.48 

106, 118,  119 

18,  19,  24-26 

27.33. 

36. 

48.59 

'JII 

37.  39.  40,  45-47 

159 

52 

118 

19 

203,  222,  394 

57 

44,69 

19.30 

52 

59 

207 

22.  26,  37-47 

160 

IX 

.  1,6 

126 

35 

105 

1,8 

211 

VI.  I 

75.78 

2,  3-7.  8-13, 

16, 

18- 

21, 

1-4 

157 

22,  28,  34,  35-38 

212 

i-VII.  10 

163 

2,  16 

208 

2 

164 

27.  31-33 

213 

3 

114 

33 

128 

3.9 

165 

X 

.  1-16 

42 

4 

70.  71. 

75.  76,  154 

10,11,15,17, 

18,30,36,38  209 

S.9 

166 

18 

307 

13 

158 

20 

ZI8,  119 

14.15 

168 

21,32 

208 

15 

169,  239 

22 

76 

15.17 

169 

22,  31,  39 

207 

17,  19.  22 

170 

22,  25,  26,  31, 32,  33, 34-36  214 

19 

171 

22,  39,  40 

216 

20,  25-58 

173 

23 

114 

25-59 

114 

31.39 

224 

66,67 

174 

35.  36,  39.  40 

215 

66-71 

186 

38 

128 

70,71 

136 

40 

40,  218 

VII.  I,  2,  10,  19,  30,  32,  44 

76 

40-42 

77.79 

2,  23 

71 

42 

217 

2,  10,  II,  12,  32 

207 

XI 

.  4,  8,  II,  15,  16,  28, 

45 

226 

3 

103 

4.42 

88 

3-9 

202 

5 

162 

5 

36 

5.  IS 

22s 

6.8 

203 

7.54 

79 

10 

78,  203,  205, 217 

7.  17.  55 

76 

lo-X.  40 

204 

17 

216 

12,  31,  46,  51 

208 

33,  36.  38. 42 

227 

15 

39 

41,42 

125 

16,28 

209 

41,  42,  47-53 

228 

20 

118 

45.54 

229 

31.41 

210 

54.55 

216 

42 

13 

55 

77 

VIII.  2 

114 

56 

236 

12,  16,  18,  23 

24,  26,  28, 

57 

237 

36,  38,  42, 55 

209 

XII. 

I 

70,77.79 

20,59 

76 

1-2 

161 

30 

208 

2-12 

234 

31.  32.  34. 44 

aio 

3 

162 

2E 

4i8 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XII.  3.4.7 

23s 

XVIII. 

14, 24, 28 

282 

9-II 

226 

15 

283 

12-19 

237 

IS-I8, 25-37 

284 

13 

239 

15 

137 

16 

238,  239 

18,  25 

28S 

20-36 

244 

19-23 

282 

23,  24,  27,  28 

31.32 

245 

24 

286 

27,  28 

275 

28   256, 258, 286, 29s,  303 

44-50 

244 

28.  38,  34-37 

291 

XIII.  I 

70 

29-30 

290 

I,  2-4,  25,  26- 

-29.  34.  35   263 

31 

289 

1-20 

262 

39 

293 

I,  21-30 

255.  257 

XIX 

1-5 

293 

26 

136 

4 

294 

26,27 

26S 

6.  7.  8,  9 

294 

27-29 

258 

12,  13,  IS 

295 

30 

264 

14 

256,  259 

31-XVI.  33 

269 

14.  15.  20 

298 

35 

268 

17 

297 

XIV.  2,  3,  13.  14 

271 

18 

77 

II 

129 

18,23 

299 

12 

29s 

25,  26,  27,  28, 

30       301 

16,  17,  18,  21, 

26 

272 

26,35 

82 

21,  23,  27 

270 

26,  27 

315 

16 

322 

27 

137 

21-22 

306 

31 

307.309 

23 

263 

31.42 

259 

30 

62,  66.  269 

34.  36,  37 

308 

31 

269 

38 

288,  309 

XV.  i-io 

42 

39 

309,  310,  315 

3 

264 

40 

315 

26 

272 

41 

310 

9.  IS 

270 

XX 

I 

316 

XVI.  7-II,  13-15,  23,  24,  26     272 

I,  2 

314 

7 

273 

2,  4.  5.  6,  7.  8 

318 

XVII. 

269 

17,  19,  25,  26, 

27       326 

I 

273 

II.  13 

321 

I,  2,  4,  s,  6,  9-19,  20 

21   270 

16 

107 

4,  II,  20,  26 

272 

17 

222,  322,  333 

23,  24,  26 

270 

19-23 

324 

10,  II,  18,  22 

271 

19,  22,  23,  26 

32s 

XVIII.  I 

269 

22,23 

190 

3 

273 

24 

324 

3 

278 

31 

280 

4-9 

279 

XXI 

1-22 

326 

8,  10,  II,  15 

280 

2 

82.  135 

13,  15.  19-23. 

24 

281 

7.23 

327 

The   Student's   Life   of  Jesus 

BY 

GEORGE  H.   GILBERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Iowa  Professor  of  New  Testament  Literature  and  Interpretation  in 
Chicago  Theological  Seminary 


Cloth.     $1.25  net 


"  Admirable  in  arrangement,  concise  in  form,  with  abundant  indexing, 
this  modest  work  speaks  most  eloquently  to  every  one  who  would  study 
the  history  of  Jesus  seriously,  by  the  truly  critical  and  scientific  method." 

—  The  Christian  Advocate. 

"  It  will  assuredly  become  the  vade  mecum  for  the  class  for  whom  it  is 
particularly  written." —  The  Evangelist. 

"  Written  by  one  who  is  a  profound  believer  in  the  supernatural,  and 
whose  belief  does  not  in  the  least  prevent  his  application  of  sound  criticism 
and  practical  common  sense  to  the  consideration  of  such  questions  as  the 
miraculous  birth,  and  the  interpretation  of  such  events  as  the  temptation." 

—  The  Outlook. 

"Acuteness,  candor,  and  conspicuous  fidelity  to  its  purpose  are  the 
notable  characteristics  of  this  volume.  ...  Its  claim  to  be  scientific  in 
method  is  fully  justified.  It  is  thoroughly  modern  in  spirit  and  manner, 
.  .  .  with  a  clearness,  completeness,  and  judicial  calmness  which  all 
scholars  must  admire.  The  work  is  admirably  adapted  to  its  end,  the  use 
of  students.  .  .  .  Any  ordinarily  intelligent  layman  will  like  it,  and  it  will 
be  a  useful  book  in  the  Sunday-school  library,  although  it  is  not  in  the 
ordinary  narrative  form."  —  Congregationalist. 

"A  work  peculiarly  suited  to  the  needs  of  students." 

—  The  Chautauquan. 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,   NEW  YORK 


The   Student's   Life   of  Paul 


BY 


GEORGE  H.   GILBERT,  Ph.D.,   D.D. 

Iowa  Professor  of  New   Testament  Literature  and  Interpretaiion  in 
Chicago   Theological  Seminary 


Cloth.    12mo.     $1.25  net 


"Clear,  compact,  and  critical." —  The  Outlook. 

"  The  aim  of  this  book  is  threefold  :  First,  to  present  the 
Simple  and  biography  of  the  great  apostle,  entirely  apart  from 
scientific ;  a  study  of  his  theological  teaching ;  second,  to 
accessible  present  the  facts  in  as  simple  and  scientific  a 
and  usable  manner  as  possible  without  comment  and  without 
rhetorical  elaboration;  third,  to  present  the  material  in  an 
accessible  and  usable  form.  There  are  full  references  to 
Biblical  sources,  and  abundant  references  to  the  modern  Htera- 
ture  of  the  subject."  —  The  Examiner, 

"A  volume  that  will  be  of  special  service  to  all  students. 
.  .  .     We  unreservedly  and  heartily  commend  this  volume." 

—  Zion's  Hei-ald. 

"  It  is  characterized  by  freshness  of  treatment,  and  intelligent 
use  of  the  latest  literature ;  ...  its  arrangement  is  admirable, 
the  style  engaging."  —  From  a  review  of  Dr.  Gilbert's  "  Stu- 
dent's Life  of  Paul"  in  the  Christian  Intelligencer. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,   NEW  YORK 


Date  Due 

F    22  Xi 

ir  S  -  "39 

"Sv^feiS.*  ^ 

if 

,^j»>K«J"JW^  "" 

*i 

^ 

